Full text of "Thomas Jefferson The Apostle Of Americanism"

See other formats

DELHI UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

01. No. LV uv L4Y

Ao.No.

Date of release for loan

This book should be returned on or before the date last stamped
below. An overdue charge of one anna will be charged for each day
the book is kept overtime

THOMAS JEFFERSON
The Apostle of Americanism

BOOKS BY
GILBERT CHINARD

THOMAS JEFFERSON : The Afostle oj Americanism
HONEST JOHN ADAMS

BUST OB THOMAS JEFIERSON BY HOUDON
In the possession of the Boston Musmm of Fine Arts

THOMAS
JEFFERSON

THE APOSTLE OF AMERICANISM
By

GILBERT CHINARD

Second Edition, Revised

BOSTON

LITTLE, BROWN AND COMPANY

1944

Published October 1939
Reprinted January 1943
Repnnted May 1944

PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

INTRODUCTION

The first edition of this book, published ten years ago,
contained several errors of fact and interpretation which can
be now corrected. Certain parts of this study could be con-
siderably enlarged ; it was thought better not to alter essentially
an essay which is presented as an interpretation of certam
aspects of Jefferson’s mind rather than as an exhaustive
biography. It is the indirect and somewhat unexpected out-
come of an investigation originally undertaken to determine
the contribution of the French philosophers to the intellectual
formation of the author of the Declaration of Independence.

The points of similarity were obvious : the parallelism
between the theory of natural rights and the “ Declaration
des droits de I’liomme ” is patent. Many of Jefferson’s utter-
ances had a sort of French ring and countless Gallicisms could
be discovered in his letters. He spent in France the five years
immediately preceding the Revolution of 1789 ; he knew
Madame d’Houdetot, Madame Helvetius, Lafayette, Con-
dorcet, Cabanis, Du Pont de Nemours, I’Abbe Morellet and
Destutt de Tracy. He was accused of bringing back from
France the “infidel doctrines” of the philosophers and to some
of his contemporaries he appeared as the embodiment of Jaco-
binism. How could such a man have failed to be influenced by
the theories which brought about the great upheaval of the end
of the eighteenth century ?

Arapidsurvey of the Jeffersonpapersinthe Libraryof Congress
and in the Massachusetts Historical Society soon convinced
me that the subject had scarcely been touched, notwithstand-
ing the controversy that had been raging about the origin of
Jefferson’s political ideas for more than a century. Hundreds

INTRODUCTION

of letters written to Jefferson by Frencli correspondents were
preserved in the precious archives, and had apparently never
been consulted. Many days were spent in the rotunda of the
Manuscript Division, turning the leaves of the two hundred
and thirty volumes of the Jefferson papers. Documents after
documents threw a new light on the mind of the great American
— letters hastily written, rough drafts corrected and recorrected,
press copies blurred and hardly decipherable, yellowed scraps
of paper crumbling to pieces but piously restored ; more letters
in a regular, precise hand, the hand of a man who had been a
surveyor and who drew rather than wrote. Fifty years of the
most eventful period of American history, told by the chief
participants, rose from the old documents, and day by day was
revealed more clearly the clean-cut figure of Jefierson the
American.

First of all, the tall, lanky boy, bom in a frame dwelling by
the Rivanna, — not a farmer boy by any means, but the son of
an ambitious, energetic and respected surveyor, a landowner
and a colonel in the militia, and of a mother in whose veins ran
the best blood of Virginia. The stem and pious education
received in the family, the reading of the Bible and Shake-
speare, the lessons of Reverend Maury, the son of a Huguenot
who took the boy as a boarding student, the years at William
and Mary College in the brilliant, animated, but small capital
of Virginia, the conversations with Mr. Small, Mr. Wythe and
Governor Fauquier, the Raleigh Tavern, the first love afiair, and
the long roamings in the hiUs surrounding Shadwell. More
years as a student of law and as a law practitioner, quickly fol-
lowed by his marriage with a Virginia “belle”, and Thomas
Jefferson had settled down, a promising young man, a talented
lawyer, a respectable landowner, an omnivorous reader who
culled from hundreds of authors moral maxims, bits of poetry,
Iristorical, legal and philosophical disquisitions and copied them
in a neat hand in his commonplace books. But curiously

INTRODUCTION vii

enough during these formative years, the direct influence of the
French philosophers was almost negligible. He Icnew Mon-
tesquieu’s “Esprit des Lois” and Voltaire’s “Essai sur les
moeurs”, but he used both books as repertories of facts rather
than as founts of ideas. His masters were the Greeks of old,
Homer and Euripides, then Cicero and Horace, finally Boling-
broke and above all the historians of the English law in whose
works he studied the principles, development and degeneration
of free institutions.

The choice of the abstracts made by this young Virginian
who was still in his twenties already reveals an extraordinary
capacity for absorbing knowledge and a most remarkable inde-
pendence of thought. As he had planned to build a house
according to his own plans, he had lilcewise decided to construct
for himself, with material just as carefully chosen, the intellec-
tual house in which he intended to live. Had not the Revolu-
tion intervened, Thomas Jefferson would probably have spent
his years in his native colony, become a successful member of
the Virginia bar, perhaps a judge learned and respected, a
wealthy landowner adding constantly to the paternal acres.
He had no ambition and little suspected his own latent genius,
and yet, during aU these years which he might have passed in
leisurely and pleasant idleness, he never ceased, unknowingly as
it were, to prepare himself for the great part he was to play.

When the call came he was ready. The ideas expressed in the
Declaration of Independence were common property, but their
felicitous wording was not due to a sudden and feverish in-
spiration. The young Virginian expressed only the definite
conclusions he had slowly reached in reading the historians and
the old lawyers. The principles there proclaimed were not
abstract and a priori principles j they were distinctly the prin-
ciples that had directed his Saxon forefathers in their “ settle-
ment” of England. They were the legitimate inheritance
of their descendants and continuators who had brought over

Vlll

INTRODUCTION

with them to America the rights of their ancestors to settle in
sparsely inhabited land, there to live freely and happily under
institutions chosen by themselves. To go back to a primitive
past, to the good old times, had been the dream of many politi-
cal philosophers ; but Jefferson’s vision of that ancestral past
was no dream, for it had originated in the only part of the
inhabited earth where it could become a reality. This was the
true background of the Declaration of Independence, the back-
ground of Jeffersonian democracy — a curious justification of
the pioneer spirit by a student of history who cared little for
abstract reasoning and philosophical constructions.

Thus far the national consciousness of Thomas Jefferson had
been somewhat hazy. Born in Virginia and intensely devoted
to the Old Dominion, he had never left his native habitat until
he was sent as a delegate to Congress. There only did he
realize the divergences of the diSerent colonies and the impe-
rious necessity for them to organize their life and to agree to
some sort of a permanent compact. In the first edition of
this book, I erroneously attributed to Jefferson a document
which seemed to summarize perfectly his views on the origin
of government. The fact that it was written, probably at a
later date, by Thomas Paine, detracts somewhat of its signif-
icance. Nevertheless, there is every reason to believe that
already by this time Jefferson had reached a certain number
of fundamental principles to which he was to adhere during
the rest of his life. First of all, he recognized a distinction
between the original “natural rights”, which the individual
can exercise by himself, and another class of rights which
cannot be safely enjoyed unless society provides adequate
protection. This was a traditional distinction familiar to all
the law students of the time. In forming a society and
in accepting a social compact, the first rights were to be
reserved and to remain inalienable; rights of the second
class, on the contrary, were partly given up in exchange for

INTRODUCTION

more security. This very simple distinction enabled the young
delegate to do away with the old antinomy so perplexing to
many political philosophers and to solve the dhSculty against
which Rousseau had vainly struggled in his Conirat social. The
individual remained in full possession of certain rights ; society
was granted only part of the others, a part to be determined
strictly in forming a social compact : the citizen no longer had
to sacrifice all his rights on the altar of the country; he
remained sovereign in a sovereign society.

Wlrat was true of individuals was true of the States coalescing
to form a union or confederation. Each individual State
remained sovereign and yielded only part of certain rights in
order to obtain more security against foreign aggressors. To
the right of expatriation for the individual corresponded the
right of secession for the State. But from this recognition of
the right to denounce the compact, it did not follow that Jeffer-
son would have encouraged either the individual or the States to
withdraw from the society thus formed in order to resume
a precarious life by themselves. Even if he had been an
anarchistic instead of being a truly "socialistic” political
thinker, a few meetings of the committees on which he sat
would have sufficed to demonstrate that, to the necessity of
society for the individuals, corresponded the necessity of a
union for the individual States. The Virginian had developed
into a true American. Jefferson was thinking nationally and
not sectionally ; he was ready for the great r 61 e he was about to
assume.

His five-year stay in Europe confirmed him in the opinion
that there existed in America the germ of something infinitely
precious, if somewhat precarious, and he realized that his
country had really become the hope of the world. He was too
fond of good music, good architecture, good dinners, good wines
and long conversations not to appreciate fully the good points of
life while in Paris. He praised the French for their achieve-

INTRODUCTION

ments in the arts and sciences, and formed with many of them
long-enduring friendships, but neither France, nor England,
and even less Italy or Spain, were countries toward which men
could turn their eyes when looking for apolitical “polar star.”
Traditions were too deeply rooted, prejudices of too long stand-
ing, class distinctions too sharply defined to leave room for any
hope of ever seeing them establish within a reasonable time a
tolerable form of government. On the contrary, imhampered
by such hoary traditionalism and free to shape her destinies,
America, provided she carefully avoided the dangers under
which Europe was laboring, could not only establish the best
possible form of government, but set an example to be followed
by the rest of mankind.

These dangers were patent ; they resulted from the existence
of privileged classes or hereditary aristocracies, of State reli-
gions, censorship of the press and books, centralization and
concentration in a few hands of all the financial and economic
resources of the country. Anything that smacked of the
European system was to be fought with the utmost energy, not
only for the sake of America, but for the sake of the world.
Such were the real reasons that justify the fight waged by
Jefierson after his return from Europe against the tendencies
represented by Hamilton. Not out of any sympathy for the
Jacobins did he seem to favor the French Revolution; but,
since America herself had become the battlefield of two opposed
ideals, he sided with the one which, in his opinion, presented the
smaller danger for the existence of his country.

Throughout the long-drawn-out battle, he remained con-
vinced that only by avoiding any entanglement with European
politics could America fulfill her destiny. The great obstacle
to such an isolation was foreign commerce, for Jefferson clearly
understood that economic and commercial bonds or dependence
would necessarily entail political bonds and political depend-
ence. America was to live in her own world, to pay her debts

INTRODUCTION

as soon as possible, to become industrially independent of
Europe, to manufacture at home enough for her own consump-
tion “and no more.” She was also to seize every opportunity
to ehminate dangerous neighbors, not that she really coveted
any territory or colony held by foreign powers, not that she
needed new land for a surplus of population ; but she could not
keep out of European politics if Europe remained at her doors
and used her colonies as a “fulcrum for her intrigues.” Spain
was so weak that notliing had to be feared directly from her,
but her colonies could be seized at any time by more powerful
enemies ; France should not be permitted again to set her foot
on the American continent. As to England, she was to be
expelled from her continental dominions whenever America
would be strong enough to enforce the American jus gentium”,
and the sea was to be neutralized.

Having removed all causes for foreign frictions and aggres-
sions, America would be free to develop along her own lines.
She was to remain for long years to come an agricultural nation ;
she would grow towards the west by attaching to herself new
territories as their population increased. The Federal Govern-
ment was to retain a minimum of power and attributions. It
was to be carefully and constantly watched for fear of concen-
trating too much power in a few hands and in one place.
Federal legislation was to be kept down, for the more laws,
the worse the republic — “plurimae leges, fessima repuUica.”
There was nothing intangible, however, in the government
which had been hastily put together at the close of the Revo-
lution. It was desirable and necessary to preserve the main
principles embodied in the Constitution in so far as they ex-
pressed the permanent and inalienable rights of the people and
the States, but each generation had a right to determine anew
the details of the legislation and how they chose to be governed.
The different articles adopted in 1787 were not to be considered
as sacred as the Tables of the Law, they were the work of fallible

INTRODUCTION

and changing human beings, and the essence of the American
government did not rest on a written document but on the dis-
positions of the individual citizens and on enlightened public
opinion.

This being the case, it became necessary to prepare each
citizen for the part he was called upon to play in the life of the
country. The great mass of the American people had a “cool
common sense” and a certain degree of instruction which fitted
all of them to do certain things, but not everything. A farmer
could not overnight and by virtue of the popular choice become
quali&ed to judge of fine legal points, to settle complicated
economic problems, or to conduct difficult diplomatic negotia-
tions with foreign courts. All this required more than ordi-
nary common sense and ordinary education : the country
needed leaders and experts to be carefully trained in special
institutions — in a national university or, if this proved impos-
sible, in State imiversities. As to the great mass of the common
people, they could be trusted to judge of facts and to sit on a
jury ; they were also good judges of men and properly could
choose between candidates for the different ofl&ces. A free
press would keep them informed of the conduct of the men thus
selected; primary and secondary schools would help in the
diffusion of knowledge, and enlightened self-interest would
prevent them at any time from making grievous mistakes.

Such a system constituted the best form of government ever
established by man ; but it did not ensue that it was immedi-
ately to be adopted by aU the nations of the earth. It embodied
certain permanent principles susceptible of general application,
for they did nothing but express the unalienable rights of man.
All men, however, were not to be intrusted at once with the full
enjoyment of their rights. There were certain countries which
for generations had been priest-ridden and king-ridden and in
which men unaccustomed to use their judgment were swayed by
emotions, hatreds and prejudices. A time might come when

INTRODUCTION

Xlll

the sacred contagion of liberty would spread to these unfortu-
nate populations, but it would take many revolutions, much
bloodshed and a slow and painful process of education to enable
them to shake off their shackles and to enjoy the full benefits of
self-government. America, on the contrary, because of her
geographical remoteness from Europe, because of the quality of
the people who had settled in the English colonies, had fought,
not to destroy an old order of things, but to preserve and to
extend already existing liberties. Among the nations of the
world she stood as an example and a hope. She was the living
evidence that under a free govermnent a large nation could
grow prosperous and powerful, simply by existing, and without
preaching any new gospel she fulfilled her duty to mankind.

Whatever may be the shortcomings of this political philos-
ophy, it was distinctly an American doctrine; one cannot
imagine it to have originated in any European comitry, for
what would have been a Utopian and chimerical dream in the
Old World was within the reach of man in America. Wliether
it corresponds to present conditions is stUl another Cjuestion ; it
is nevertheless true that by emphasizing the imiqueness of
America and the political superiority of his native land for more
than fifty years, Thomas Jefferson did more than any other
man of his generation to formulate the creed of Americanism.
The man who was accused of being denationalized stands as the
most integrally and truly American among his contemporaries.

This does not mean, however, that Jefferson did not occa-
sionally depart from the policies he had thus drawn. No
man can remam in public life for half a century without ever
falling into contradictions and inconsistencies. Only “closet
politicians” and mere theorists never accept any compromise,
and Jefferson was a very practical politician with a keen sense
of possibilities and realities. Trained as a small-town lawyer,
then placed onmany committees in Congress, forced to wrest war
measures out of a reluctant Assembly, even managing to hold

XIV

INTRODUCTION

his own with tlie resourceful diplomats of Europe, Thomas
Jefferson knew how to handle men and how "to take things by
their smooth handle.” There was nothing quixotic about him
and he never tried to fight against windmills, nor did he break
his head against blank walls. But he was singularly apt to bide
his time, to wait for a favorable opportunity and, whenever he
saw a chance, he never failed to come back to his original line of
conduct and to his original policies.

He seldom indulged in undue display of emotions and per-
sonal feelings, but he was no mere thinking machine. In his
youth he loved and suffered; later he was perplexed by the
riddle of the world ; he studied the old philosophers in order to
find the moral props which religion could no longer give him
and, in his older age, came back to the morals of Jesus. His I
encyclopedic curiosity and the versatility of his mind won for
him the admiration of his contemporaries, and, in that sense —
the eighteenth-century sense — he was truly "a philosopher.”
But he was too practical-minded to waste much time in mere
theorizing or in theological and metaphysical “ disquisitions.”
Firmly convinced that the business of life was with matter, he
considered science as an instrument and a tool to master the
blind forces of nature. He was more interested in applications
than in disinterested research, and in that respect, as in many
others, he was not only an American, but, above all, an eight-
eenth-century man. Intensely nationalistic as he was when it
came to politics, he was truly cosmopoHtan in the realm of
intellectual achievements, and thus was created the legend
of a denationalized Jefferson ; for the popular mind, fond of
generalizations, is unable to recognize such distinctions.
Among his friends he counted aU the leading scientists of the
time and through them — particularly through his French
friends of the Museum — he exerted an influence of which he
himself was perhaps not fully aware. To his European cor-

INTRODUCTION

respondents he appeared the embodiment of what was best in
the American character. His influence on the development of
liberalism and democratic ideas throughout the world can
hardly be estimated, and separate investigations will have to
be carried out before his exact contribution to the growth of
democracy can be rightly estimated. Through his letters he
encouraged his friends to keep their faith, but better still
he demonstrated that self-government and democracy, as he
understood it, were practical and workable schemes and not the
idle dreams of philosophers shut in their closets. )

I hardly dare mention here the names of the many friends
and colleagues who gave me most generously their assistance
and encouragement. To Doctor J. C. Fitzpatrick, untiring,
most patient and helpful in his suggestions, I owe a particular
debt. Mr. W. C. Ford afforded me all possible facilities for
consulting the letters of Jefferson in the Jefferson Coolidge
Collection of the Massachusetts Historical Society. I discussed
more than once with Professors Willoughby, Latan4 and Lovejoy
and with President Goodnow of the Johns Hopkins University
the perplexing problems that confronted my ignorance. But
none of my counselors and friends are to be held responsible
for the ideas here expressed, some of which they would probably
refuse to endorse.

In the course of this investigation I consulted too many
books to list them all. Randall is stiU very useful and has not
been completely superseded by more modern biographies. I
found the books of Beveridge fascinating though not entirely
unbiased and could not completely agree with Mr. Beard on
the economic origins of the Jeffersonian democracy. I natu-
rally made use of Mr. Becker’s study of the Declaration of
Independence. I read the biography of Mr. Hirst with great
interest, though our points of view were very different, and
I almost decided to abandon my undertaking when the more

XVI

INTRODUCTION

penetrating analysis of Mr. Albert Jay Nock appeared. Since
the first edition of this book, I have taken into consideration
the constructive criticism of several reviewers and have pursued
my study of Jefferson and contrasted him with John Adams,
the New England champion of tradition somewhat out of place
in the younger American world After editing his correspond-
ence with Du Pont de Nemours, I became even more con-
vinced of the genuine originality of the American philosopher
whose resemblances with the Physiocrats are more superficial
than fundamental.

As I did ten years ago, I wish to express again the pious
hope that sometime the American powers that be will realize
the necessity of giving to the public a complete and correct
edition of the Jefferson papers. The collections in the Library
of Congress and the Massachusetts Historical Society con-
stitute the richest treasure house of information ever left
by a single man. Other manuscripts are preserved in the
Huntington Library, at the University of Virginia and in
several private libraries. It would take many lives and a
fortune to edit them properly. Monticello has now become
a national shrine and wiU be safely preserved. A national
monument is soon to be erected in Washington and a huge
pile of marble, In that neo-classical style introduced by Jefferson
the architect in his native country, will remind the tourists of
the existence of the man who was at the same time a seer, a
clear thinker, a master politician and a builder. His monument
remains what he has wrought so well: the Declaration of
Independence ; the University of Virginia ; his contribution
to a greater jUnerica, the formulation of a creed, obsolete in
some respects and temporarily obscured by developments he
could not foresee, but stiU constituting one of the most potent
elements in the life of America.

Princeton University
June, mg

Gilbert Chinard.

CONTENTS

Inteoduction V

BOOK one: The Virginian

I A ViEGiNiA Bo-mooD 3

n An American Disciple of Greece and Old England 19
in A Virginia Lawyer 34

BOOK TWO.; Jeferson and the American Revolution

I The Declaration of Independence S 9

n The Revision of the Laws of Virginia 86

in Governor of Virginia — The “Notes ON ViRGiNu” 108
IV A Statesman’s Apprenticeship 137

BOOK three: An American View of Europe

i Society and Travel 159

n Gallo-American Commerce and the Debt Question 176
ni Union and Isolation 194

rv Jefferson and the French Revolution 215

BOOK four; Monocrats and Republicans

1 The Quarrel with Hamilton 245

n Jacobin or American? 274

m Monticello — Agriculture and Politics 298

IV “The Dictates of Reason” and Pure Americanism 321
V Political Leader and Strategist 343

xviii

CONTENTS

BOOK FIVE; The Presidency

I “All Republicans, All Federalists” 379

II Protective Imperialism and Territorial Expansion 396

HI “Self-Preservation Is Paramount to All Law” 425

IV “Peace and Commerce with Every Nation” 440

BOOK SIX : The Sage of Monlicello

I “America Has a Hemisphere to Itselp” 467

II Democratic America 489

HI The Philosophy of Old Age 513

Index 533

ILLUSTRATIONS

Bust of Thomas Jefferson by Houdon Frontispiece

In the, possession of the Boston Museum of Fine Arts

Lafayette’s “Declaration of the Rights of Man”, with

THE Corrections of Jefferson 8o

From the manuscript in the possession of the Library of Congress

A Page from Jefferson’s “Commonplace Book” 102

From the manuscript in the possession of the Library of Congress

Lafayette 206

After a lithograph from the portrait by Grevedon

Alexander Hamilton 256

From the painting by John Trumbull in the possession of the Essex In-
stitute, Salem, Massachusetts

Thomas Jefferson 290

From the portrait by Rembrandt Peale

Monticello as It Appears To-day 314

Thomas Jefferson 468

From the portrait by Kosciuszko

BOOK ONE

The Virginian

CHAPTER I

A VIRGINIA BOYHOOD

The peoples of the Old World worship at the birthplaces of
their national heroes and bury their mortal remains in splendid
mausoleums, pantheons or Westminster Abbeys. By a signifi-
cant and symbolic contrast, the memories of Washington and
Jefferson are enshrined in no ancestral homes, but in the man-
sions planned with loving care, in which they so expressed
themselves that their very spirit seems to haunt the deserted
rooms of Mount Vernon and Monticello. They are buried
according to their wishes on their own land, at the very center
of the acres they had themselves surveyed and reclaimed from
the wilderness, close to nature and Mother Earth. However
great may be their debt to the past and their remote ancestors,
they stand by themselves at the threshold of America’s national
history, — master builders who wrestled with gigantic tasks
and first thought of their country as the future home of unborn
millions.

The boy who was born on April 2, 1743, in the recently
erected farmhouse at ShadweU, on the bank of the Rivanna,
never gave much thought to his lineage in his later life. Yet
Virginians of good stock were always proud of their ancestry,
and more than once he was told by his mother that the Ran-
dolphs could “trace their pedigree far back in England and
Scotland.” Jefferson’s mother and John Marshall’s grand-
mother were descended from Wfiliam Randolph and Mary
Isham, both of the English gentry, and Jane Randolph, issued
from the best blood in the Old Dominion, had married when she
was nineteen a man without means, whose education had been

THOMAS JEFFERSON

neglected, but sturdy and industrious and belonging to one of
the proudest and most aristocratic lines of old Virginians.

Of his mother, Jefferson has told us very little either in his
letters or in his “Autobiography,” We may surmise she had
the refined, modest, imobtrusive and yet efficient qualities so
marked in the Virginia girls of the Colonial days and so often
noticed by travelers. Sons are apt to mold their feminine
ideal on the memory of their mother, and Jefferson may have
been thinking both of her and of his wife when, many years
later, he contrasted French frivolity with Virginian virtues :

In America, the society of your husband, the fond cares for the
children, the arrangements of the house, the improvements of the
grounds, fill every moment with a useful and healthy activity. , . .
The intervals of leisure are filled by the society of real friends, whose
affections are not thinned to cobweb, by being spread over a thou-
sand objects. This is the picture, in the light it is presented to my
mind.^

The fond cares for her children would have been ample to
fill all the minutes of Jefferson’s mother. Large families were
the rule in Virginia; fifteen children were born to Thomas
Marshall and Mary Keith, and Jefferson’s family was no excep-
tion to the rule. Between 1740 and 1755, Jane Randolph gave
ten children to Peter Jefferson ; Thomas was the third child
and the first son.

What information he gave about his father has to be com-
pleted from other sources. The tradition in the family was
that “the first paternal ancestor came from Wales, and from
near the mountain of Snowdon, the highest in Great Britain.”
Peter Jefferson, landowner, practical surveyor, of gigantic
stature and strength, had the sturdy qualities and ambition of
the pioneer. He received a colonelcy in the militia, became a
member of the House of Burgesses in 1755, and in 1749 had

*To Mrs. Bingham, Paris, February 7, 1787, Memorial Edition, VI, 81.

A VIRGINIA BOYHOOD

been chosen with Joshua Fry, professor of mathematics in
William and Mary College, to continue the botmdary line be-
tween Virginia and North Carolina. “He was afterwards
employed with the same Mr. Fry to make the first map of
Virginia which was ever made.” Besides his association with
Fry, from whom he drew the theoretical knowledge of mathe-
matics in which he was lacking, Peter Jefferson improved him-
self by much reading, not novels, but the serious and sound
books which constituted the ordinary family library in colonial
Virginia, — historians, essayists, and most of all Shakespeare.
For in Virginia as well as in New England, Shakespeare and the
Bible were the two books found in every household, the two
richest springs of the modern English language. Religion took
up as much of their hfe as in New England. Prayers were said
three and sometimes four times a day, and from his earliest
infancy, Jefferson became familiar with the liturgy of the
Church of England, and had stamped in his memory the strong
old words, vigorous phrases and noble speech of King James’
version.

He was only five years old when his father, already planning
to give him the education of which he himself had been de-
prived, decided to send the boy to the best school in the neigh-
borhood. He stayed two years at the English school , then,
when nine, he went to the school of Mr. Douglas, a Scotch
clergyman, who taught him French and the rudiments of Latin
and Greek. Most of his childhood was spent away from home,
as a boarding student, and the silence maintained by Jefierson
with reference to his parents is thus easily explained. It ex-
plains also the lack of spontaneity and the awkwardness which
always prevented him from expressing freely his emotions and
sentiments. What may seem in him a national characteristic
was largely a matter of training and early discipline.

tie was fourteen when his father died, with a last recommen-
dation that his son be given a classical education. StiU a mere

6 THOMAS JEFFERSON

boy, Thomas Jefferson had become the oldest living male of the
family and to a certain extent its head. Whether he was at
first fully aware of his new responsibility is very doubtful. He
could not remember without a retrospective fear in his later
years how close he had come to wasting his whole life :

When I recollect that at fourteen years of age, the whole care
and direction of myself was thrown on myself entirely, without a
relation or friend, qualified to advise or guide me, and recollect the
various sorts of bad company with which I associated from time to
time, I am astonished I did not turn off with some of them, and
become as worthless to society as they were.’^

The next two years were spent as a boarding student with
Reverend Mr. Maury, “a correct classical scholar” — probably
not a very inspiring one, if we interpret rightly the adjective
used by Jefferson. We may well imagine him at sixteen, a tall,
slim boy, with auburn hair and clear eyes, fond of fowling, horse-
riding and outdoors, fond of reading also, but disposing of very
few books ; for his father’s library was not large and, if the
Reverend Mr, Maury followed the tradition of many old school-
masters, he seldom opened his Hbrary to his students. Still,
he knew his Bible, had read a few English classics, was well
grounded in Greek and Latin, and had perfected his knowl-
edge of French ; but it is doubtful whether he was acquainted
with any French -writer except the old standard authors —
“T61emaque”, Berquin, perhaps “ Gfi. Bias” and Pascal’s “Pen-
s6es,” But, even at that age, Jefferson necessarily knew some-
thing of the many duties of a landowner ; lor the slaves he was
the young master, and dming the summer he had to become
somewhat acquainted with the management of a large estate.
The education he had received was not exactly a frontier edu-
cation with the usual connotations of that word. He had not
been brought up in a log cabin, he had never engaged in back-

* To Jefiersou Randolph, November 24, 1808, Memorial Edition, XII, 197.

A VIRGINIA BOYHOOD 7

breaking tasks of felling trees or of splitting rails ; he probably
had never put his hand to the plow except as an experiment.

He had heard his father tell of long journeys in the wilder-
ness and of treacherous Indians, but no Red Men roamed the
forests near Shadwell. The only Indians he knew were peace-
ful, almost romantic characters who stopped at the house of
Colonel Jefferson on their way to Williamsburg.

I knew much — he said — of the great Ontassere, the warrior
and orator of the Cherokees ; he was always the guest of my father
on his journeys to and from Williamsburg I was in his camp when
he made his great farewell oration to his people, the evening before
his departure for England. The moon was in full splendor, and
to her he seemed to address himself in his prayers for his own safety
on the voyage, and that of his people during his absence ; his sound-
ing voice, distinct articulation, animated action, and the solemn
silence of his people at their several hres, filled me with awe and
admiration.^

This youthful impression left an indelible mark on his mind
and was not without some influence on the “Notes on Virginia”
as well as on the letters he wrote to Indian chiefs when he was
President.

Nor was Shadwell exactly in the “howling wilderness”, even
if there was no large city near it. It was located on the road to
Williamsburg, and many travelers stopped at the house on
their way to the capital. Hospitality to friends and strangers
was a sacred rite and most scrupulously observed. Much visit-
ing was done in Virginia, and men particularly spent consider-
able time traveling from house to house ; slaves were put up,
horses were sent to the stable, while the best was spread on the
table for the master. During the summer months, when roads
were not made impassable by deep mudholes, one visitor had
hardly left when another came. They had to be entertained,
sometimes at a considerable expense, always at a considerable

1 To John Adams, June ii, 1812 Memorial Edition, XHI, 160

8 THOMAS JEFFERSON

loss of time. Young Jefferson soon realized, after returning to
Shadwell, that he would never amount to much and would
probably become an idler, if he stayed on the estate like so
many of his young friends. The wasting of precious mo-
ments irritated and disturbed him when he wanted to do some
reading or some study, and he felt that the condition of the
estate hardly warranted such a generous hospitality. He
therefore decided to leave, and the letter he wrote on this occa-
sion to his guardian, Mr. John Hervey of Bellemont, shows
Viim fully aware of his responsibihties and perfectly definite in
his plans. ^

In the spring of 1760, the young man, then exactly seventeen,
went to Williamsburg and enrolled in the College of William
and Mary. Quite possibly it was his first visit to the capital of
Virginia, his first contact with urban life. It was, for the time,
a place of very respectable size and considerable activity. Old
Professor Hugh Jones, a man much traveled and much read,
described it enthusiastically in his “Present State of Virginia”,
published in London in 1724:

Williamsburg is a market town, and is governed by a mayor and
aldermen. It is a town well stocked with rich stores, aU sorts of
goods, and well furnished with the best provisions and liquors.
Here dwell several good families, and more reside here in their own
houses at publick times. They live in the same neat manner,
dress after the same modes, and behave themselves exactly as
the Gentry in London; most families of note having a coach,
chariot, Berlin, or chaize. . . . Thus they dwell comfortably,
genteely, pleasantly, and plentifully in this delightful, healthful,
and (I hope) pleasant city of Virginia.

Great occasions were receptions given by the Governor,
meetings of the Assembly, occasional performances by regu-
lar companies from New York, semi-professional players and
later, by the Virginian Company of Comedians. Horse races

i “Domestic Life of Thomas Jefferson”, by S N. Randolph New York, 1857, p. 27

A VIRGINIA BOYHOOD 9

attracted every year a large concourse of people, for every true
Virginian is a lover of horseflesh. Betting was active and
large sums of money changed hands, particularly for the four-
mile heat race given each year on the course adjoining the
town.

Ladies in all the glory of their imported dresses, gentlemen
in brilliantly colored knee breeches and coats, with elegantly
chased swords at their sides and the best beaver hats made in
London under their arms, attended the receptions, the dances,
the theater, and more than once adjourned to the famous Apollo
room in the Raleigh Tavern, where they indulged in much
drinking of “punch, beer, Nantes rum, brandy, Madeira and
French claret.” The first time young Jefferson went to the
Raleigh he was probably shown the largest punch bowl in the
house, which had played a part in the purchase of Shadwell,
for had not Colonel Jefferson bought the site from William
Randolph of Tuckahoe, for “Henry Weatherboume’s biggest
bowl of arrack punch”?

The college itself was no less an attraction than the town.
Built originally on the plans of Christopher Wren, it had un-
fortunately been remodeled after a fire, “a rude, misshapen
pile, which but it had a roof would be taken for a brick-kiln”,
wrote Jefferson in his “Notes on Virginia.” Such as it was,
however, with the Capitol, of much better style, it was the
first large building and monument the young man had ever
seen and he probably admired it at the time as much as most
Virginians did.

It was by no means a imiversity, not even a real college.
Like most institutions of learning in the colonies, it had been
established “to the end that the church of Virginia may be
furnished with a seminary for ministers of the gospel, and that
the youth may be piously educated in good letters and man-
ners, and that the Christian faith may be propagated amongst
the Western Indians, to the glory of the Almighty.”

THOMAS JEFFERSON

The lack of preparation of the students, the fact that the
sons of the wealthiest were sent to England to finish their edu-
cation, perhaps also an aristocratic scorn for specialized and
intensive learning among the gentry of Virginia, all had con-
tributed to keep down the standards of the institution. Much
to his disgust, Jefferson found

. . . that the admission of the learners of Latin and Greek had
filled the college with children. This rendering it disagreeable and
degrading to young gentlemen, already prepared for entering on
the sciences, they were discouraged from resorting to it, and thus the
schools for mathematics and moral philosophy, which might have
been of some service, became of very little. The revenues, too, were
exhausted in accommodating those who came only to acquire the
rudiments of the sciences.^

Thus the problem of caring for the many, the danger of keep-
ing together in college the prepared and the unprepared stu-
dents, which is still with us, existed already in America one
hundred and fifty years ago. Evidently Jefferson considered
himself as one of those young gentlemen who were prepared
for entering upon the study of the sciences ; he was certainly
more mature for his years than most of his fellow students and
looked down upon them as well, we may surmise, as upon the
teachers themselves. On the other hand, the town offered
many temptations and he probably yielded to some of them.
He was often thrown into the society of horse-racers, card-
players, fox-hunters, and at the end of his first year in college
it appeared to him that he had spent more than his share of the
income of the estate. He therefore wrote to his guardian to
charge his expenses to his share of the property : “No,” Colonel
Walker is reported to have said, — “if you have sowed your
wild oats thus, the estate may well afford to pay the biU.”

We possess no precise information upon the amount spent
by Jefferson nor any account book for that year, but we may
^ "Notes on Virginia.” Query XV.

A VIRGINIA BOYHOOD

surmise that Colonel Walker would not have been so lenient if
the total sum had been spent in reprehensible dissipations.
Williamsburg boasted of a large bookstore, and in 1775 Dixon
and Hunter published a list of more than three hundred titles
in their stock. Book lovers are born and not made. Jeffer-
son had never been able to satisfy fully his passion for books,
and as the college library offered him only very meager
resources, he must have plunged with delight in the bookshop
of Williamsburg and bought extravagantly, an expense the
estate “could well afford to pay.” But the fact remained that
what he had learned he had learned by himself, and that college
life had not furnished him the guidance and direction he was
looking for.

It was at tlris juncture that Doctor Small, professor of mathe-
matics, was appointed ad interim professor of philosophy and
soon developed an interest in the young Virginian. Jefferson
himself paid a grateful tribute to the man who just in time
rescued him from his frivolous companions and brought back
to his mind the serious purpose he had entertained when he
entered William and Mary.

It was my good fortune and that probably ffxed the destinies of
my life, that Doctor William Small of Scotland was then Professor of
Mathematics, a man proformd in most of the useful branches of
science, with a happy talent of communication, correct and gentle-
manly manners, and an enlarged and liberal mind. He, most
happily for me, became soon attached to me, and made me his
daily companion when not engaged in the school; and from his
conversation I got my first views of the expansion of science, and of
the system of things in which we are placed. Foitunately, the
philosophical chair became vacant soon after my arrival at college,
and he was appointed to fill it 'per interim: and he was the first who
ever gave, in that college, regular lectures in Ethics, Rhetoric and
Belles-Lettres.^

1 "Autobiography.” Memorial Edition, I, 3.

THOMAS JEFFERSON

For Jefferson Doctor Small was the prime awakener and
inspirer. Through him the young man was introduced to
George Wythe who soon accepted him as a student of law, and
through him again he was received by Governor Fauquier.

Such were the first really cultured men with whom Jeffer-
son ever came in contact : William Small, the mathematician
and philosopher, would not have been a true Scot if he had not
had that passionate love for discussion and logic which seems
the innate gift of so many sons of the Highlands. Francis Fau-
quier, “the ornament and delight of Virginia ”, generous, liberal,
elegant in his manners and requirements, was the son of Doctor
Fauquier of Floirac, near Bordeaux, who had worked under
Newton in the mint and become a director of the Bank of Eng-
land. His early biographer Burke, the Virginia historian, has
chiefly emphasized his propensity to gammg. But Fauquier
was an economist of no mean distinction and had written an
important tract on the basis of taxation. He was interested
in physics or natural philosophy and had become a Fellow of
the Royal Society. He was a student of natural phenomena
and sent to the Society the description of a hail-storm in Vir-
ginia. Finally, there was George Wythe, whose virtue was of
the purest tint, his integrity inflexible, and his justice exact.
Last and most important of all his qualities, perhaps, was the
characteristic peculiarity mentioned by Jefferson in the sketch
he wrote after the death of his old master ; “he was firm in his
philosophy, and neither troubling, nor perhaps trusting any
one with his religion.”

Such were the true masters of Thomas Jefferson, and from
their conversations around the table, after bottles of port had
been brought, he learned more than any student at Wilham
and Mary ever acquired in college. It was a rare privilege
for a young man of Jefferson’s age to be admitted to the “ parties
carrees*\ and he must have already ^ven singular promise to
have been invited at all into the society of these three lumi-

A VIRGINIA BOYHOOD

naries of Virginia. Wliat topics were discussed among them
can easily be imagined. Fauquier would speak of old England,
the theaters of London, the monuments and works of art, of his
colleagues of the Royal Society, or discuss a problem of taxa-
tion or a recent meteorological phenomenon. A man of the
world, a friend of Admiral Anson whom he had met after his
circumnavigation of the globe, a director of the South Sea
Company, he would speak of ships, strange lands, and reveal
to the young man the existence of a world extending far beyond
his native Virginia. Thus was born in Jefferson that ardent
desire to travel and most of all to see England which appears in
some letters written in the early sixties.

Philosophical and religious subjects perhaps were introduced,
although that is rather doubtful, in my opinion. The passage
on George Wythe, already quoted, mentions his reticence on
religion. Whatever may have been the propensity of Fauquier
to gaming, he was never accused by his contemporaries of being
a religious libertine. It is also very doubtful whether any of
the group would naturally have discussed such subjects, par-
ticularly in the presence of a young student whose education
had been deeply religious. Finally it must be remembered
that in Virginia, as well as in New England, there always existed
some “reserved questions”, that it was not good form to criti-
cize established institutions and current beliefs. It is quite
possible that Fauquier may have lent to Jefierson certain vol-
umes of Shaftesbury and Bolingbroke, but in spite of the con-
trary opinion expressed by some biographers of Jefferson, it
seems very unlikely that any of the three older men should
have undertaken to shake the foundations of his faith. The
“ parties carries ” could not have lasted very long, since William
Small went back to Scotland in 1762. But Jefferson’s acquaint-
ance with Fauquier and Wythe was continued for many years
after the departure of the philosopher and, in both cases, until
the death of the older men.

THOMAS JEFFERSON

The master of Shadwell had sown his wild oats ; he had had
his brief flight of dissipation and had reformed , but he had by
no means become a hermit. He had not entirely given up
attending horse races and fox hunts.

Many a time — he wrote in 1808 — have I asked myself, in the
enthusiastic moment of the death of a fox, the victory of a favorite
horse, the issue of a question eloquently argued at the bar, or in the
great councils of the nation. Well, which of these kinds of reputa-
tion would I prefer? That of a horse jockey^ a fox hunter? an
orator ? or the finest advocate of my country’s rights ? ^

What young man has not thus dreamed of serving his coun-
try and devoting himself to some noble cause, what student
preparing for the bar has not pictured himself winning a diffi-
cult case, forcing the judge’s attention and swaying a reluctant
jury? The ambition to become an orator may have been
awakened in his mind by the acquaintance he had made of
the "uncultured Demosthenes” of the Old Dommion. In the
winter of 1759-1760, he had met at the house of Mr. Dandrige,
in Hanover, a tail, ascetic-looking fellow, rather disdainful of
finery and careless in his wearing apparel, but “with such
strains of native eloquence as Homer wrote in” — “I never
heard anything that deserved to be called by the same name
with what flowed from him, ” wrote Jefferson later, “and where
he got that torrent of language is unconceivable. I have fre-
quently shut my eyes while he spoke, and, when he was done,
asked myself what he had said, without being able to recollect
a word of it. He was no logician. He was truly a great man,
however — one of enlarged views.”

His name was Patrick Henry. Far less uncultured than
Jefferson’s portrait would lead us to believe, related to very
good families, although poor and a complete failure as a mer-
chant, Patrick Henry had suddenly decided to enter the legal
profession, and after borrowing a “ Coke upon Littleton ” and a

* November 34 , 1808 Memorial Edition, XII, 197.

A VIRGINIA BOYHOOD 15

“Digest of the Virginia Acts”, he had appeared after six weeks’
preparation before the board of examiners. He won his di-
ploma through logic, clear presentation and common sense
rather than through his knowledge of the law, and commenced
practicing in the fall of the same year. Whenever a case ap-
peared before the General Court sitting at Williamsburg and
consisting of the Governor and his council, “he used to put up”
with Jefferson, borrowing books which he seldom read, always
ready with stories of the backwoods. Fame came to him soon
after, when his fiery eloquence in the “parson’s case” drew
down upon him clerical hostility and public admiration.
“Instead of feeding the hungry and clothing the naked,” he
cried out in the courtroom, “these religious harpies would,
were their powers equal to their will, snatch from the hearth
of their honest parishioner his last hoe-cake, from the widow
and her orphan cliildren their last milch cow, the last bed, nay,
the last blanket, from the lying-in woman,” ^ Not even in the
days of the Convention did the balls of Paris echo with more
vehement vituperations and more indignant demmciations.
A magnetic power, an emotional appeal to elementary passion,
to a sense of justice in the mass rather than to the letter of the
law fitted him for political life. He was soon to have his
opportunity ; in the meantime he awoke in Jefferson a revolt
against clerical usurpations that was to bear its fruit in time.
Usually passed over by Jefferson’s biographers, the plea made
by Patrick Henry in the “parson’s case” seems to have been
the incident that called the young man’s attention to the posi-
tion occupied by the established Church in its relations to the
civil power. It started in him the train of thought that cul-
minated in the “Bill for religious freedom.”

It has been sometimes said that Jefferson used to spend four-
teen hours a day in study when he was at Williamsburg ; his
correspondence with John Page shows him in a very different

1 William Wirt Henry "Life of Patrick Henry.” New York, 1891, vol I, p 41.

t6 THOMAS JEFFERSON

light. He was not in any sense a bookworm, even though he
read enormously, but he played as strenuously as he studied.
A good horseman, a good violin player, a good dancer, he was
a much-sought-after young man. He had a keen eye for the
ladies, and very early in 1762 he had fallen in love with Miss
Rebecca Burwell, the Bell-in-day, Belinda, campana in die,
Adnileh of his letters to Page. The young lady had given him
her profile cut in black paper which he carried in his watch case.
Far from her, life lost all interest : “ all things appear to me to
trudge in one and the same round : we rise in the morning that
we may eat breakfast, dinner and supper, and to go to bed
again, that we may get up the next morning and do the same,
so that you never saw two peas more alike than our yesterday
and to-day.” He had in mind to go back to Williamsburg, to
propose, receive his sentence and be no longer in suspense :
“but reason says, if you go, and your attempts prove unsuccess-
ful, you will be ten times more wretched than ever.” ^ Spring,
then summer came, and he could not muster up enough courage
to declare himself. Madly in love as he was, he was not in-
tending to marry at once. He had formed great plans for trav-
eling. He was dreaming of hoisting his sail and visiting Eng-
land, Holland, France, Spain, Italy (where I would buy me a
good fiddle), and Eg3^t, and return home through the British
provinces to the northward. This would take him two or three
years. Was it fair to ask Belinda to wait so long for him?
And yet he could not leave without speaking and remain in
suspense and cruel uncertainty during the whole trip. “If I
am to meet with a disappointment, the sooner I know it, the
more of life I shall have to wear if off ... If Belinda will not
accept of my service, it will never be offered to another. That
she may I pray most sincerely : but that she will, she never
gave me reason to hope.”^

’ January 20, 1763. Memorial Edition, IV, 6.

* July IS, 1763. Ibid., rV, 8.

A VIRGINIA BOYHOOD 17

When college opened again at the beginning of October, he
had made up his mind to make his position clear. A dance was
to be given in the Apollo room of the Raleigh Tavern. He
dressed up in all his finery, he rehearsed in his head such
thoughts as occurred to him and made a complete fiasco. “A
few broken sentences, uttered in great disorder, and inter-
rupted with pauses of uncommon length were the too visible
marks of my strange confusion” (October 7, 1763). Belinda
did not say a word to relieve him in his embarrassment, did not
manifest in any way that she understood his purpose, and sev-
eral months were to elapse before Jefferson had another oppor-
tunity to express himself. This time he had learnt his piece
perfectly, and from what we know of him already it is probable
that he made a very clear presentation of his case, too clear
and too logical even, for he concluded by saying that the de-
cision rested with her and that a new interview would not serve
any purpose. A strange lover indeed, apparently as madly in
love as a young man could be, and yet too respectful of the free
will of his beloved to attempt to sweep her off her feet by too
frequent interviews and too passionate pleas ! Belinda lis-
tened attentively but did not give any indication that Jeffer-
son’s speech had convinced her and won her heart. A few
weeks later the bashful suitor heard indirectly of her answer
when she announced her marriage to Mr. B . . . Whether it
was “for money, beauty, or principle will be so nice a dispute,
that no one will venture to pronoimce”, wrote Jefferson at the
time. To crown the joke, his happy rival, who evidently had
been kept in blissful ignorance of Jefferson’s sentiments, asked
him to act as a best man at -the wedding. A more ironical
trick of fate could scarcely be imagined ; but, all considered,
Belinda was not altogether to blame.

Thomas Jefferson did not think of committing suicide, he
did not swear revenge, nor did he curse the ungrateful one in
any of his letters. We have some reason to believe, however,

i8 THOMAS JEFFERSON

that his affair with Belinda marked a decisive turn in his life.
It killed whatever romantic strains may have existed in his
heart ; it matured him, and it was probably at that time that
the long-belated metaphysical crisis took place, the disap-
pointed lover evolving a certain philosophy of life which he was
to retain to the end of his days.

CHAPTER II

AN AMERICAN DISCIPLE OF GREECE AND
OLD ENGLAND

Until very recently the material for a study of the forma-
tive years of Thomas Jefferson was very scanty. Many of
his earliest letters have disappeared and he always felt a strong
disinclination to analyze himself in writing. It was also con-
trary to his training and to the customs of his milieu to discuss
personal matters too frankly and too openly. An American
Jean-Jacques Rousseau baring his heart to posterity would
have been as out of place as a man from the moon in New Eng-
land or Virginia. But what he did not express as his personal
feelings, he copied from the philosophers and poets he read
during his studious nights or when resting under a tree on one
of the hills surrounding ShadweU. The two commonplace
books I have recently published, written by Jefferson during
his student days and consulted by him throughout his life,
could rightly be called “Jefferson self-revealed.” ^ They
enable us at any rate to determine with a fair degree of
certainty the sentimental and intellectual preoccupations that
filled Ms mind when examining the problems of society and
the universe.

It does not seem that, until 1764, that is to say until the
unfortunate ending of his love affair with Belinda, Jefferson
had ever been touched by any religious doubt. When, in July,
1763, he foresaw the possibility of being rejected, he wrote to
Page a long letter in which he appears still strongly marked

1 “The Commonplace Book of Thomas Jefferson.” Paris, Baltimore, 1937, “The
Literary Bible of Thomas Jefferson, ” Paris, Baltimore, 1938.

TPIOMAS JEFFERSON

by the Christian training he had received in his fanaily and at
the hand of Mr. Douglas and the Reverend Mr. Maury :

Perfect happiness, I believe, was never intended by the Deity to
be the lot of one of his creatures in this world, but that he has
very much put in our power the nearness of our approaches to it,
is what I have steadfastly believed.

The most fortunate of us, in our journey through life, frequently
meet with calamities and misfortunes which may greatly afflict us ,
and, to fortify our minds against the attacks of these calamities and
misfortunes, should be one of the principal studies and endeavors of
our lives The only method of doing this is to assume a perfect
resignation to the Divine will, to consider that whatever does
happen, must happen , and that, by our uneasiness, we cannot pre-
vent the blow before it does fall, but we may add to its force after
it has fallen. These considerations, and such others as these, may
enable us in some measure to surmount the difficulties thrown in
our way ; to bear up with a tolerable degree of patience under this
burden of life ; and to proceed with a pious and unshaken resigna-
tion, till we arrive at our journey’s end, when we may deliver up our
trust into the hands of him who gave it, and receive such reward as
to him shall seem proportioned to our merit. Such, dear Page,
will be the language of the man who considers his situation in life,
and such should be the language of every man who would wish
to render that situation as easy as the nature of it will admit. Few
things will disturb him at aU nothing will disturb him much.^

This note of Christian stoicism is exactly what might be ex-
pected from a young Protestant whose mind was not particu-
larly perturbed by metaphysical problems. At that time
Jefferson did not even conceive that there might exist a code of
ethics resting on a different basis. If Doctor Small had helped
him to find his exact relation to “the system of things in which
we are placed”, he was satisfied that complete resignation to
Divine Will was the only wisdom. It may be safely assumed

i To John Page, Shadwell, July 15, 1763 Memorial Edition, IV, 10.

AN AMERICAN DISCIPLE 21

that three years after meeting Governor Fauquier, Thomas
Jefferson had retained intact the faith of his youth.

What brought a change in his attitude and disturbed his
equilibrium is certainly not the influence of the “infidel French
philosophers.” The volume of extracts which I published under
the title of “The Literary Bible of Thomas Jefferson” does not
contain a single quotation from Voltaire, Diderot, or Rousseau,
and French literature is represented only by a few insignificant
lines from Racine. It is more likely that the first doubts were
injected into his mind by the reading of Bolingbroke. He did
not even need the assistance of Fauquier to lead him to the
English philosopher. The catalogues of the old libraries of
Virginia frequently mention Shaftesbury’s “Characteristics”
and Bolingbroke’s “Works.” ^

Whether it was from the town bookstore or from Fauquier’s
own hbrary, the fact remains that sometime, when still a stu-
dent, but certainly after 1764, JeSerson obtained a copy of
Bolingbroke and came to question the authenticity of the
Bible as a historical document. It may have been due to the
sentimental shock he had suffered, or simply to the critical
attitude developed in him by his study of legal texts and de-
cisions, but there is little doubt that he put into practice at
that time the advice he gave later to Peter Carr, when he told
him to “question with boldness the existence of a God, be-
cause, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage
of reason, than that of blindfold fear. You will naturally
examine first, the religion of your own country. Read the
Bible, then, as you would read Livy or Tacitus.” * He there-
fore went systematically through Bolingbroke, learned from
him methods of historical criticism and scientific doubt,
weighed the evidence with a legal mind and came to very
definite conclusions. At this decisive turn in his life, Jefier-

1 Mary Newton Stanard "Colonial Virginia ” Philadelphia, t 917, p 306.

* To Peter Carr Memorial Edition, VI, 258

THOMAS JEFFERSON

son might easily have become a sceptic and a cynic, like so
many men of the eighteenth century. As a matter of fact, a
careful study of his “Literary Bible” indicates that at least
for a time he was extremely cynical in his attitude towards
women. This may have been due to the cruelty of Belinda,
but it was more than a passing mood, for as late as 1770, two
years before his marriage, he scribbled on the margin of his
account book a Latin doggerel clearly indicating his distrust
of the female kind :

Crede raiem veniis, animum ne crede puellis
Namque est foeminea tutior unda fide.

Foemina. nulla bona est, sed si bona contigit ulla
Nescio quo fato mala facia bona est.

From Euripides particularly he collected with a sort of wag-
gish pleasure the strongest denunciations of women in the old
poet and repeated with him “Mortals should beget children
from some other sources, and there should be no woman-kind :
thus there would be no ill for man” — and again, “0 Zeus,
why hast thou established women, a curse deceiving men, in the
light of the sun?”

In Milton he found an echo of Euripides’ misogynism and
from “Paradise Lost” and “Samson Agonistes”, he compiled
a pretty set of accusations against female usurpations. His
conclusion at that time was probably that of the old English
poet, and he affirmed his superiority over the treacherous sex
by repeating after him :

Therefore God’s universal law
Gave to man despotic power
Over his female in due awe,^

His outlook on life must have been very gloomy, if we are to
trust certain quotations from Greek and Latin authors. To
matters of mythology, descriptions of battles, and grandiose

‘ “ Samson Agonistes”, v, io2S-

AN AMERICAN DISCIPLE

comparisons in Homer, Jefferson apparently paid no attention.
He saw in the old poet a repository of ancient wisdom and the
ancient philosophy of life. From him he collected verses in
which he found expressed views on human destiny, — a cou-
rageous, stoic, yet disenchanted philosophy, summed up in two
lines from Pope’s translation :

To labour is the lot of man below

And when Jove gave us life, he gave us woe.

When he read from Cicero’s “Tusculanae” he selected pas-
sages with a view to confirm the deistic and materialistic prin-
ciples towards which he was leaning at the time : “All must
die ; if only there should be an end to misery in death. What
is there agreeable in life, when we must reflect that, at some
time or other we must die.’’ This particular piece of reasoning
seems to have struck Jefferson quite forcibly, for he repeated
it again and again fifty years later in his letters to John Adams ;
“For if either the heart, or the blood, or the brains, is the soul,
then certainly the soul, being corporeal, must perish with the
rest of the body ; if it is air, it will perhaps be dissolved ; if it
is fire, it will be extinguished.” ^

It was then that he copied and evidently accepted the state-
ment of Bolingbroke that “it is not true that Christ revealed
an entire body of ethics, proved to be the law of nature.”

The “ law of nature ” — what was meant by the word ? Was
it the Epicurean maxim of Horace, — “ enjoy to-day and put as
little trust as possible in the morrow?” If such had been the
conclusion reached by Jefferson he could have followed the line
of least resistance and enjoyed the good things of life, the good
wines of the Raleigh Tavern, the pretty girls and all the social
dissipations of many of his coniemporaries. Such would have
been Jefferson’s destiny, had he been born in the Old World.

See also “Commonplace Book”, p 330, and "Writings.” Memorial Edition, XV,
139, March 14, 1820.

THOMAS JEFFERSON

Had he been made of weaker stuff he would have become one
of the fox-hunters, horse-racers and card-players of the Vir-
ginian gentry. But he was saved by his aristocratic pride and
the stern teaching of the old Stoics.

He was conscious that he was of good stock, and he had read
in Euripides that “to be of the noble born gives a peculiar dis-
tinction clearly marked among men, and the noble name in-
creases in lustre in those who are worthy.” ^

To be ever upright and to be worthy of one’s good blood,
this was the simplest, most obvious and most imperious duty,
It would have been very difficult for Jefferson to believe any
longer that “at the end of the journey we shall deliver up our
trust into the hands of him who gave it and receive such reward
as to him shall seem proportionate to our merit”, which was
his belief in 1763. There was not even much to obtain in our
life as a reward, for most societies are so organized that “when-
ever a man is noble and zealous, he wins no higher prize than
baser men.” ^ StiU the fact remained that, after the collapse
of all the religious superstructure, the foundations of morality
were left unshaken, so Jefferson rmdertook to rebuild his own
philosophy of life according to Bolingbroke’s advice, with the
material at hand. For it was evident that “a system thus
collected from the writings of ancient heathen moralists, of
TuUy and Seneca, of Epictetus, and others, would be more full,
more entire, more coherent, and more clearly deduced from
unquestionable principles of knowledge.” ®

But he would take nobody’s word for it, he would accept the
teachings of no professor of moral philosophy ; every man had
to think for himself and to formulate once for all his own philos-
ophy. When writing to his nephew, who he thought might
go through the same crisis, Jefferson declared some forty years
later that :

' “Hecuba”, 592, in “Literary Bible of Thomas Jefferson.'
’ “Hecuba”, 306. * Bolingbroke, in “Literary Bible.'

AN AMERICAN DISCIPLE 25

Man was destined for society. His morality, therefore, was to
be formed to this object. He was endowed with a sense of right
and wrong, merely relative to this. This sense is as much part of
his nature, as the sense of hearing, seeing, feeling , it is the true
foundation of morality and not the TO KALON, truth, etc. as
fanciful writers have imagined. The moral sense, or conscience is
as much a part of man, as his leg or arm.

JBnt this is the Jefferson of 1808, the mature man, almost the
aged sage of Monticello. How far he was from having reached
that poise and that clear vision of the moral world, appears in
the confusion and contradictions of the abstracts collected in
the “Literary Bible.” Yet when he read Homer, Euripides,
Cicero, Shakespeare, and even Buchanan, Jefferson had a clear
and single purpose. He was reading more for profit than for
pleasure, to gather material with which to build anew, by
himself and for himself, a moral shelter m which he could find
refuge for the rest of his days. He was not thinking then of
devoting his life to his country ; if he had any patriotism, it
was dormant, and if he had any sense of abstract justice it is
nowhere manifest. And yet, quite in contrast with the general
run of quotations in the “Literary Bible” are some maxims
scribbled in one of his unpublished Memorandum books under
the year 1770. He had already levelled the top of the hiU on
which he was to build Monticello and was digging the cellar.
But one day, after noting carefully that “4 good fellows, a lad
and two girls, of about 16 each, have dug in my cellar a place
in 8 hrs. 3 feet deep, 8 feet wide and i6|- feet long,” he stopped
to recapitulate the most striking maxims by which he intended
to regulate his life :

... no liberty no life — endure and abstain — bonum esi quod
honeskm, made virtute esto, nil desperand2m, faber suae quisque
fortunae, jari quae sentiai, what is, is right — ex redo decus- — ne cede
malis sed contra audieniior ito ■— long life, long health, long pleasure
and a friend — non vokim nobis sed patriae — fiatjusliiia ruat cahm.

THOMAS JEFFERSON

Clearly between the time he compiled his “Literary Bible”
and this entry in the Memorandum book, a considerable change
had taken place in Jefferson’s mental world. What was dor-
mant had been awakened, what was non-existent had been
created. Let those who are looking for influences hunt for
pale reflections of these maxims in the writings of the French
philosophers. I cannot perceive any. I would even say that
there is no distinct influence of Bolingbroke, for Jefferson bor-
rowed from Bolingbroke methods of approaching certain prob-
lems rather than definite ideas. The young Virginian made
use, for a short time only, of the critical reasoning employed by
the English philosopher, but when it came to building anew,
he gathered all the material, stone by stone and maxim by
maxim, from the old Greek Stoics. It was a pessimistic yet
courageous philosophy of life, far different from eighteenth-
century optimism. By a strange anomaly, the son of the pio-
neer, the young man supposedly brought up under frontier
influence, felt more kinship with Greece and republican Rome
than with the philosophers of London, Paris or Geneva. Dur-
ing this early period of his life and when he had rejected the
Christian system of ethics, the young Virginian found the moral
props he needed in Homer’s simple code of honor and friend-
ship ; in echoes from the Greek Stoics discovered in Cicero ;
and through them also was revealed to him a conception of
patriotism and devotion to public duty which was to mold the
rest of his life.

In the transformation that took place in Jefferson’s attitude
towards life, it would be unjust to leave out the influence exerted
by Patrick Henry, The young student was present when
Henry delivered his famous speech in the House of Burgesses
in 1765 and ended the speech with the defiant declaration,
“If this be treason make the most of it.” “He appeared to
me,” wrote Jefferson, “ to speak as Homer wrote ; his talents
were great indeed, such as I never heard from any man.” From

AN AMERICAN DISCIPLE

Henry he did not receive any particular political philosophy,
but from him he learned the value of those striking formulas
which remain in the memory of men, become mottoes and battle
cries of political campaigns. He liked the vehemence and
completeness of Henry’s affirmation and when, in 1770, he
wrote in his memorandum that maxim of all revolutionists and
radicals of every age — Jiat juslitia mat cesium, let there be
justice, even if the heavens should crumble down — he was
thinking as much of the Virginia orator as of the Romans of
old.

A last item in the same memorandum book of 1770 may
justify the supposition that still another influence had entered
Jefferson’s life. By that time he had forgotten the fickle
Belinda who had played with his heart, but he was no longer
a woman-hater. When he quoted from Pope "the sleepy eye
that speaks to the melting soul”, he was already thinking of the
young and attractive widow he was to marry two years later.

In the meantime he had been pursuing assiduously his law
studies and his readings of political philosophers. Very early
after entering college, he had decided that he would not be satis-
fied with the study of belles-lettres, or the life of a gentleman
managing a large country estate. The clergy and the law
were the only two professions open to a young man of dis-
tinctly aristocratic tendencies. He chose the law and began
his training under the direction of Mr. Wythe. This training
was markedly different from the instruction he would have
received in Europe. There was no regularly organized law
school at Williamsburg ; candidates for the Bar had to prepare
themselves under the direction of an old practitioner; they
attended the sessions of the court and prepared briefs for their
master; they studied by themselves and consequently were
much more familiar with the practice than with the theory
of jurisprudence. No examination was given by a regular
faculty; but a license to practice law and to hang out his

28 THOMAS JEFFERSON

sliingle was obtained by the candidate after appearing be-
fore a special board of examiners. In the case of Patrick
Henry, the examiners had been John Randolph, afterward
Attorney-general for the Colony, Peyton Randolph, Mr. Wythe
and perhaps Robert C. Nicholas. If Henry “got by” after
six months’ study, thanks to his phenomenal fluency and
“aplomb”, it took Jefferson six years before he^ considered
himself sufflciently prepared to appear before the examiners.
A large part of his time however was spent at Shadwell in
agricultural pursuits and independent study; but he came
regularly to Williamsburg to consult Mr. Wythe, to attend
the sessions of the Court, to buy books, and also to attend
during the winter the many functions given by the brilliant
society of the capital of Virginia. These years, the most
important of all in the formation of Jefferson’s political theo-
ries, can now be studied in the “ Commonplace Book”, long
thought destroyed, wliich even Randall had not been able
to find, but which is now safely deposited in the Library of
Congress. It is a most revealing compilation and throws
an unexpected light on the origin of Jefferson’s political
doctrines.

It contains first of all no less than five hundred fifty-six
articles analyzing special cases from the Reports of Cases in the
King’s Bench, George Andrews, Robert Raymond, WUliam
Salkeld and Coke’s “Institutes”, for in a colony where no at-
tempt had been made to codify the body of existing laws, and
where the common law was the supreme law of the land, the
first prerequisite to becoming a good lawyer was to assimilate an
enormous number of cases and precedents. Jefferson proceeded,
like all the law students of his time, to dig in “ Coke upon Little-
ton” and others, putting down in his “Commonplace Book”
decisions, discussions, definitions, matters of importance to a
country lawyer, such as wills, devises, commercial contracts,
cases on larceny, trespassing, debts, damages, bankruptcy,

AN AMERICAN DISCIPLE

leases, libels ; and lie did it with his customary thoroughness
and clarity. A detailed study of the “Commonplace Book”
would be most illuminating for those who, in spite of all evi-
dence to the contrary, still maintain that Jefferson was an im-
practical philosopher, interested only in abstract principles
and in theory. On the other hand, he was not simply a coun-
try lawyer, either. If he had not seemed to manifest any
interest in the abstract study of the principles of law, in what
he used to call “metaphysical disquisitions”, he was keenly
interested in the historical development of the legal structure
on which rested modern society and particularly the colonial
society of Virginia.

He carefully went through Lord Karnes’ “Historical Law
Tracts” and studied from him the history of criminal law, prom-
ises and covenant, property, securities upon land, courts, briefs.
It is in Kames that he found a definition of society which he
could have written himself and which expresses his political
individualism and subordination to law :

Mutual defence against a more powerful neighbor being in early
times the chief, or sole motive for joining society, individuals never
thought of surrendering any of their natural rights which could be
retained consistently with their great aim of mutual defence.

This is elaborated upon in the passage quoted from the “His-
tory of Property” :

Man, by his nature, is fitted for society, and society by its con-
veniences is fitted for man. The perfection of human society
consists in that just degree of union among the individuals, which
to each reserves freedom and independency, as far as is consistent
with peace and good order, The bonds of society where every man
shall be bound to dedicate the whole of his industry to the common
interest would be of the strictest kind, but it would be unnatural
and uncomfortable, because destructive of liberty and independence ;
so would be the enjoyment of the goods of fortune in common.

3 °

THOMAS JEFFERSON

I am perfectly aware of the undeniable influence of Locke
upon the theory of Karnes , and it would be very unlikely that
Jefferson had not read at that date Locke’s “Treatise on Civil
Government. ” The fact remains, however, that neither Locke,
nor so far as I know any political thinker of the period, had yet
so clearly defined that particular combination of individualism
and respect for peace and order so characteristic of American
democracy. We shall see in one of the following chapters how
Jefferson, elaborating on this statement of Karnes, derived
from it all his conception of natural rights. The Scottish Lord
was for him a master and a guide.

In Sir John Dalrymple, author of an “Essay Towards a Gen-
eral History of Feudal Property”, in Francis Stoughton Sulli-
van’s “An Historical Treatise of the Feudal Laws and the
Constitution of the Laws of England”, Jefferson studied the
history of primogeniture and of entails and came to the con-
clusion that both of them had foundation neither in nature nor
in law, and certainly did not appear in England before the Nor-
man Conquest. He reached to the same finding in his long
dissertation on the original common law, and thus we can trace
directly through the “Commonplace Book” the sources of the
Bill on Primogeniture, of the Bill for Religious Freedom, and of
the Law to Abolish Entails, which Jefferson considered as form-
ing a system “which would eradicate every fibre of ancient or
future aristocracy and lay a foundation for a government truly
republican.”

Some of the entries in the “Commonplace Book” were evi-
dently made after the period with which we are dealing in this
chapter, although most of them can be dated before 1776. We
have no means of determining whether Jefferson had under-
taken a systematic study of federative governments when he
was still a student, or at what time he copied the many
extracts and quotations from Montesquieu. Nor can we enter
here into a detailed discussion of all the articles. One or two

AN AMERICAN DISCIPLE

facts, however, stand out even after a superficial glimpse of
this repertory of ideas on government and society. The first
is that Jefferson at that date, and indeed during most of his
life, was not interested in abstract principles or in theoretical
discussions. His was eminently the mind of a lawyer, and it is
not for a lawyer to arrive at a definition of justice but to deter-
mine what the law says on a particular point, Yet in a coun-
try where law is not codified and the common law is the basis of
the legal structure, it is impossible to find out what the law is
without undertaking a historical study of the cases at hand in the
different repertories. Men are either fallible or dishonest, false
interpretations creep in, texts are distorted from their original
meaning, and thus it becomes necessary to apply to legal deci-
sions the rules of historical evidence formulated byBolingbroke,

After undertaking such a study, Jefferson arrived at a very
curious conclusion , that at a time which was not buried in a
mythological past, the Anglo-Saxons had lived under customs
and unwritten laws based upon the natural rights of man and
permitting the individual to develop freely, normally and
happily. In the course of time, these free institutions deterio-
rated through the nefarious influences of several agencies. Un-
written law became written law and jurists succeeded in con-
cealing under their sophistry and verbiage the primitive intent
of natural legislation. Priests, striving to extend their domi-
nation over a reaim which primitively was foreign to them,
introduced religious prescriptions into civil laws and thus
diminished the rights of the individual. Conquerors and a long
lineage of hereditary kings further modified primitive institu-
tions in order to provide an apparently legal foundation for
their usurpations, until the people, no longer able to withstand
patiently the evils of tyranny, arose and recovered at least some
of their rights.

Such a conspectus of the history of England was neither new
nor original ; it was one of the favorite contentions of English

32 THOMAS JEFFERSON

jurists during the eighteenth century, and nowhere perhaps is
it more forcibly developed than in the last chapter of Black-
stone’s “Commentaries”, “Of the rise, progress and gradual
improvements of the laws of England.” It is fundamentally
also the doctrine of Jefferson, who went much farther than any
of the English political thinkers in his revindication of the Saxon
liberties.

One may see already how such a conception differs from the
theories of Rousseau and the French philosophers, and indeed
from those of the English philosophers. And this is easily
explained, even if too seldom realized. Born in the eighteenth
century, Jefferson is in some respects a man of the eighteenth
century, hut no greater mistake could be made than to apply
to him the same standards that apply to European political
thinkers. The very fact that he was born and grew up in a
remote colony prevented him from joining any particular school
of political philosophy. He had comparatively few books at
his disposal, certainly fewer gazettes, and only faint echoes of
the philosophical battles raging in Europe reached the capital
of Virginia. During the long winter evenings at Shadwell, he
had ample time to think, to sift from the books he was reading,
not matter of passing interest, but matter of practical value
and principles susceptible of being applied to the society which
he knew and in which he lived. He could not have the cos-
mopolitan and universal outlook of thinkers who had traveled
and met with representatives of many nationalities. His
“Literary Bible”, as well as his “Commonplace Book”, con-
tains many examples which might be used to illustrate his pro-
vincialism or, if one prefers, his regionalism.

No man can become genuinely interested in things he has
never seen and cannot imagine. He had never seen the Eng-
lish countryside and so, when he copied from Thomson’s de-
scription of spring, he selected only passages that could apply
as well to the landscape of Virginia as to the scenery of old Engv

AN AMERICAN DISCIPLE 33

land. Even when he read Horace he eliminated verses with
too much local color, unknown plants, unfamiliar dishes and
beverages, until the descriptions of a Roman farm by the old
poet would fit a t5^ical Virginia plantation with the slaves
singing in the great courtyard after the day’s work is done.
He knew Latin and Greek, French and Italian, and perhaps
even German ; for the time and place his library was rich and
varied. He had read Milton, Shakespeare, Dryden, Buchanan^
Thomson, Thomas Moss ; he had studied Karnes, Pelloutierl
Stanyan, Eden, Baccaria, Montesquieu and possibly Voltaire’s
“Essai sur les Moeurs”, but fiom each of these he had culled
facts and definitions rather than principles and theories. He
had read some books of travel and listened with enjo3nnent to
Fauquier’s accounts of his long voyages. He was dreaming of
visiting England, the continent and the Mediterranean, but
the only form of society he knew was the colonial society of
Virginia. No cosmopolitan tendencies would develop in such
surroundings. Superior as he was in intelligence and culture
to his fellow students and to the young gentry of Williamsburg,
Jefferson, at the age of twenty-five, was not yet an American ;
he was distinctly a Virginian.

CHAPTER III

A VIRGINIA LAWYER

Iisr 1767, Thomas Jefferson, then twenty-four years of age,
was “led into the practice of the law at the bar of the General
Court” by his friend and mentor, Mr. Wythe. He was the
owner of a substantial estate inherited from his father, and he
managed the family property of ShadweU, but he had already
formed plans for an establishment of his own and begun prep-
arations to build Monticello on the other side of the Rivanna.
The only future open to him seemed to be that of any young
Virginian of his social class. He occasionally joined them in
fox-hunting and attended the races, enjoyed a dance, a concert,
and a good play at the theater. The following year was par-
ticularly brilliant at Williamsburg. The governor held stately
receptions and the Virginian Company of Comedians presented
a rich program : “The Constant Couple or a Trip to Jubilee”,
a farce called “The MiUer of Mansfield”, “The Beggar’s
Opera”, “The Anatomist or Sham Doctor”, besides the ordi-
nary plays of the repertory, were given during the spring and
sunnner of that year.^

Jefferson had his share of all these social pleasures, together
with others, but there were also simpler and more austere oc-
cupations. First of all he had to look after his plantation.
Agriculture, so long a haphazard and empirical affair, was mak-
ing great strides in Europe, particularly in England. Treat-
ises on the subject and special magazines were read eagerly in
Virginia ; the choice of cultures, the improvement of seeds, the
introduction of new crops greatly concerned the minds of pro-

' Stanard, p. 240.

A VIRGINIA LAWYER

gressive planters like Colonel Washington and the young mas-
ter of Shadwell.

The “Garden Books” kept by Jefferson and now published
only in part, reveal him as a forerunner of modern efficiency
engineers. Fences, walls, roads and bridges had to be built
on the 1900-acre estate left him by his father ; trees had to be
planted and vegetables raised for the large family at Shadwell,
for the slaves and for the many travelers and visitors who con-
tinued to drop in. If all the seeds planted in Jefferson’s vege-
table garden and orchards did well, he must have had an ex-
traordinary variety of produce, considerably larger than is to
be found on the best appointed farms of to-day For he was
not satisfied with the staple vegetables which appear on the
American table with clocklike regularity; he sowed “salsifia,
peppergrass, sorrel, salmon radishes, nasturtium, asparagus, all
sorts of lettuce, cresses, celery, strawberries, snap-beans, purple
beans, white beans, sugar beans, cucumbers, watermelons,
cherries, olive stones, raspberries, turnips”, and — horrors! —
garlic. He was led into many such experiments by his neigh-
bor and friend Philip Mazzei, formerly of Tuscany and now of
Albemarle County, for many of the entries in the Garden Book
are in Italian and "aglio de Terracina {vulgo garlic), radiocchio
di Pistoia (succory or wild endive), cavolo broccolo Francese
di Pisa, fragole Maggese (May strawberries) ” and dozens of
other imported varieties appear in his garden lists. Then there
were the horses, for, true to the Virginia tradition, Jefferson
kept no less than half a dozen blood mares of good pedigree.
Above all, the regular crops of wheat, corn and especially to-
bacco had to be looked after ; for tobacco was the only crop
that could be marketed for solid cash or sent to London to be
exchanged for books, furniture, fine clothes, musical instru-
ments, and the choice wines of Europe. As a practical farmer
Jefferson was rather successful, since during these early years
his land brought him an average return of two thousand dollars.

36 THOMAS JEFFERSON

This was ample for his needs. But his main resources were
procured from the practice of law.

He kept a complete memorandum of all the cases in which he
appeared before the courts of Virginia and opposite each case
entered the fee received for his professional services.^ These
fees would seem very moderate to the least ambitious practi-
tioner of our days. In many cases no fee is mentioned at all,
and we are at liberty to suppose that Jefferson took some char-
ity cases, or that the defendants were not always scrupulous in
paying their bills. Yet, altogether, the total averaged close to
three thousand dollars a year, a nice fat addition to the income
from Shadwell and MonticeUo. Starting with one hundred
and fifteen cases in 1768, Jefferson was retained as attorney or
counsel in no less than four hundred thirty cases in 1771, and
it is no exaggeration to state that no day passed during the
twelve years he remained engaged in the practice of law with-
out his giving considerable time to his profession. The mod-
erate amount of these fees and the large munber of cases indi-
cate the kind of practice in which Jefferson was employed.
Trespassing of cattle on a neighbor’s field, destruction of fences,
robbery committed by a clerk, wills, administration of estates,
interest, quarrels between two goodwives, with a lively ex-
change of actionable words, assault and battery, all the seamy,
sordid, petty side of life, constituted for these twelve years the
daily practice of Thomas Jefferson, an apprenticeship of life
and a training in the knowledge of human nature enjoyed by
very few abstract philosophers.

In the old days of the bar, one of the earmarks of most law-
yers was a fluency of speech, unsurpassed except perhaps by the
ministers. But words never came easily to Jefferson, or in great
abundance. His voice, pleasant and modulated in ordinary
conversation, “sank in his throat”, If raised higher, and became

' These memoranda are in the Jefferson Coolidge Collection of the Massachusetts
Historical Society.

A VIRGINIA LAWYER 37

husky. He was clearly a business lawyer, an of6.ce lawyer,
whose clear, precise, meticulous presentation of facts fitted
him particularly for appearing before a court of appeals like
the General Court, rather than for moving and emotionally
convincing a jury of twelve men good and true.

His scorn for oratory, long sentences, images, apostrophes
may have been a case of sour grapes, for in his youth he ad-
mired tremendously Patrick Henry. As we have seen, he was
wise enough not to aim higher than he could reach. Not only
did he never crave the fame of the popular orator, but, con-
scious of his limitations, he always showed a real repugnance
to addressing a large assembly. Particularly brilliant in con-
versation, he was destined to be a committee man, to win his
ends by the pen rather than by the silver tongue of the politi-
cian. Yet if he had been fond of rhetoric, rhetoric would have
found its way into his writings, but no man of the period wrote
less figuratively, employed fewer artifices of style ; metaphors,
comparisons were unknown to him. Ideas remained ideas and
were never clad in the flowing garments of mythology ; facts
remained facts and never became allegories. Liberty never
appeared before his eyes and was never represented by him as a
goddess, and neither America nor Britannia were majestic fig-
ures of heroic size that passed in his dreams. He was neither
emotional nor imaginative, yet his eyes were keen and quick to
note and establish distinctions between different varieties of
plants or animals. His mind was alert and always on the
lookout for new facts to add to his store of knowledge, after
proper cataloguing. Surely he was not the man to make start-
ling discoveries in the realm of natural history, or to propose
a new system of the universe, nor was he one to conceive, in a
moment of inspiration, a new political gospel and a new system
of society ; when he took up the practice of law in Williams-
burg, the greatest future that destiny had in store for him,
promising as he was, seemed to become as upright and sound

38 THOMAS JEFFERSON

a lawyer as Mr. Wythe, and a legal authority as good and
learned as Mr. Pendleton.

He was admitted to the Bar in 1767, and two years later was
chosen as a member of the House of Burgesses and placed on the
committee appointed to draw up an answer to the Governor’s
speech. His draft was rejected, however, and Colonel Nicho-
las’ address substituted^ A few days later Governor Bote-
tourt, unable to endorse the spirited remonstrance to the King
on the subject of taxation, dissolved the Assembly.

The next day — wrote Jefferson — we met in the Apollo of the
Raleigh Tavern, formed ourselves into a voluntary convention,
drew up articles of association against the use of any merchandise
imported from Great Britain, signed and recommended them to the
people, repaired to our several counties, and were re-elected without
any other exception than of the very few who had declined to fol-
low our proceedings ^

A spirit of discontent was abroad and had spread through-
out the colonies, but it was neither disloyalty nor rebellion.
Easily satisfied with this gesture, which for many remained
a mere gesture, the Virginians paid little attention to public
affairs during the next two years. In the words of Jefferson
“nothing of particular excitement occurring for a considerable
time, our countrymen seemed to fall into a state of insensibility
and inaction.” His private life was more eventful. The first
of February, 1770, the house at ShadweU in which he lived
with his mother, his brother and his immarried sisters, was
burnt to the ground, and with it every paper he had and almost
every book.

On reasonable estimate — he wrote to Page — I calculate the
cost of the books burned to have been £200 sterling. Would to God
it had been the money, then it had never cost me a sigh. To make
the loss more sensible, it fell principally on my books of Common

1 To Wirt, August 5, iSiJ Memorial Edition, XTV, 33s
* "Autobiograpliy ” Ibtd , I, 6.

A VIRGINIA LAWYER

law, of which I have but one left, at that time lent out Of papers
too of every kind I am utterly destitute. AH of these whether
public or private, of business or of amusement, have perished in the
flames.

The disaster had not been quite so complete as Jefferson in-
dicates. His “Commonplace Book” was saved, his account
books, garden books and many memoranda and family papers
escaped the flames and were discovered again in 1851 at the
bottom of an old trunk.^ Even as far as books were concerned,
the loss was not altogether irretrievable. Jefferson wrote at
once to Skipwith for a catalogue of books, sent orders to Lon-
don, and two years later he could proudly enter in a diary not
yet published that his library consisted on August i, 1773, of
twelve hundred and fifty books, not including volumes of
music or “his books in Williamsburg.” A very substantial
store of printed matter for the time.

Another event of quite a different order took place in his life.
Jefferson had lost a home, but he was building another, soon to
be ready for occupancy, on the hiU of Monticello, and he al-
ready knew that the house would not be left long without a
mistress On the third day of December, 1771, he filled out a
formal application for a marriage license in the court of Charles
City County and on the first of January he was married to
Martha Skelton, widow of Bathurst Skelton, and daughter of
John Wayles, then twenty-three years old. John Wayles of
“The Forest” was a lawyer with a large practice, a man of
worth if not of eminence, a boon companion welcomed in every
society, who had amassed quite a large fortune. His daughter
Martha, a true type of Virginia girl, of medium height and
well-formed figure, had been well educated and possessed all the
social accomplishments of the time. She danced gracefully,
played the harpsichord and the spinet, was well read and, above
all, was a very effleient housekeeper, for she knew how to man-

1 Randall, "Life of Jelietson”, 1 , 16, n.

THOMAS JEFFERSON

age the slaves and care for them in their illnesses, knew how to
keep accounts and to arrange for a reception. If the family
tradition is true, she was receptive to music, for Jefferson had
won out over two rivals because of his talent on the violin and
his ability to sing duets. It was a manage de raison, to be sure,
and two years later Jefferson noted with undisguised satisfac-
tion that, following the death of his father-in-law, the portion
that came to Martha was equal to his own patrimony and con-
sequently “doubled the ease of our circumstances.” But it
was also a marriage of love, not without romantic color, with
a wedding trip from Charles City to Monticello through a
snowstorm, and a late arrival at night in the cold new house.
Jefferson did not take any of his friends into his confidence and
did not celebrate his connubial bliss ; but at the very end of the
pages given to Milton in his “Literary Bible”, as an after-
thought and a recantation from his misogynism, are found the
following lines copied, we may surmise, during his honeymoon :

Nor gentle purpose, nor endearing smiles
Wanted, nor youthful dalliance, as beseems
Fair couple, linkt in happy league
Alone as they . . . ^

Belinda had been forgotten, and the young woman-hater had
found his fair conqueror.

But death again took its toll and cast its cloud over Monti-
cello. With Page, Dabney Carr, Jefferson’s fellow student at
William and Mary, had been his closest friend. Carr, a fre-
quent visitor at Shadwell, had married in 1764 Jefferson’s
sister Martha. Not a wealthy man, he was described by his
brother-in-law as living in a very small house, with a table,
half a dozen chairs, and one or two servants, but the happiest
man in the universe.** He died when hardly thirty and Jeffer-
son had him buried beneath the shade of their favorite tree at

* “Paradise Lost”, 1 4, v., 337.

* To John Page, February ai, 1770. Memorial Edition, IV, 17.

A VIRGINIA LAWYER

Monticello under which they had so often read, dreamed and
discussed; and such was the origin of the little cemetery in
which Jefferson was to bury so many of his dear ones before he
joined them himself in his last sleep. For Carr he went to his
“Literary Bible”, as he himself felt unable to wrdte a fitting
tribute, and copied from Mallet’s “Excursion” an inscription
to nail on the tree, by the grave of the friend “who of all men
living loved him most.”

Honored hy the Royal Government and made by Botetourt
“Lieutenant of the County of Albemarle, and Chief Comman-
der of all His Majesty’s Militia, Horse and Foot in the said
county of Albemarle” ; honored also by his Alma Mater and
appointed by the President of William and Mary “Surveyor of
Albemarle County”,^ a member of the Assembly, one of the
richest landowners of his county, one of the most successful
lawyers of Virginia, happily married, busy with his estate, his
books, his violin, his law practice, Jefferson could look forward
to a long, quiet and moderate life, the ideal life of a farmer, a
gentleman and a scholar. For a man who took his duties seri-
ously it was by no means an existence of idleness, in nowise to
be compared with the hfe of an English gentleman farmer.
Every planter was to some extent a captain, and every plan-
tation was to a large extent self-sufl&cient and self-supporting.
In the case of Jefferson, who had recently increased his domain,
difficulties and new problems requiring inventiveness, resource-
fulness and ingenuity arose every day. Slaves had to be taught
new trades and trained, the wilderness had to be reclaimed.
Thus were developed qualities of leadership and qualities of
class pride. A young planter related to the best families of the
colony felt that he belonged to a ruling class, above which
could only exist the remote power of the British Parliament
and the majesty of the king represented by a governor who

‘ June 9, 1770, and June 6, 1773. The diplomas are preserved in the Jefierson papers
of the Library of Congress.

THOMAS JEFFERSON

never really belonged, and who in spite of his exalted position,
always remained a stranger.

An English tourist, Burnaby, traveling in Virginia in 1760,
had already noted signs of impatience and restlessness among
the colonists of Virginia. “They are haughty,” he wrote,
“and jealous of their liberties ; impatient of restraint and can
scarcely bear the thought of being controlled by superior power.
Many of them consider the Colonies as independent states,
not connected with Great Britain othei-wise than by having the
same common King.” ^

When the delegates from Virginia were sent to the first Con-
tinental Congress, Silas Deane noted that “the Virginia, and
indeed all the Southern delegates appear like men of importance
. . . they are sociable, sensible, and spirited men. Not a milk-
sop among them.” *

They were aristocrats wont to give orders and resentful of
any interference ; they were lords and almost supreme rulers
on their plantations; they were owners of many slaves and
they had been accustomed to call no man master ; and Jeffer-
son was one of them.

The change in the situation had come very abruptly. It is
not the purpose of this book to present an elaborate discussion
of the causes of the American Revolution, whether they were
economic or political or philosophical, or whether they were of
mixed motives, varying with each colony and in each colony
with every man, did not impel the colonies to revolt against
the mother country. I am aware of the present tendency to
attribute most of the agitation preceding the revolution to
purely economic causes; it must be remembered however,
that, if the ulterior motives of the promoters of the American
Revolution were selfish and interested, Jefferson was one of
those who were moved by entirely different considerations, as

I Quoted by Stanard, p. 163.

“ Quoted by T. N. Page, p. 147.

A VIRGINIA LAWYER

were, as a matter of fact, most of the members of the First Coru
tinental Congress.

While life was stUl moving easily and happily in Virginia,
where in 1772 the theatrical season had been particularly
brilliant, things were coming to a head in New England. News
of the Bill closing the Port of Boston on the first of June, 1774,
reached the Virginia Assembly during the spring session ; how
it was received had better be told in the words of Jefferson. As
so often happens in history at the decisive turn of events, the
leadership was taken by a very small group of men who made
up their minds at once, assumed responsibility and changed the
course of the ship of state. So far no strong protest had been
made by Virginia to the British Government. Dunmore was
far from being tyrannical ; the order imposing duties on many
English products had been largely rescinded, except on tea,
but it may not be sacrilegious to state that the Virginia gentry
were more partial to French wines, Madeira and Nantes rum
than to the English national beverage. If Virginia had not
declared at that particular time her solidarity, if Jefferson and
his friends had not taken the right steps and found the right
words to “arouse the people from the lethargy into which they
had fallen”, even New England steadfastness and stanchness
of heart would have been unequal to the task. It was on this
occasion, rather than on the Fourth of July, 1776, that the fate
of the British colonies of America was decided.

According to Jefferson’s own statement, leadership in these
subjects was no longer left to the old members of the Assembly,
but Patrick Henry, R. H. Lee, F. L, Lee, three or four other
members and he himself met in the library after agreeing that
they must take “an unequivocal stand in the line with Massa-
chusetts.” They decided that the best means of calling the
seriousness of the situation to the attention of the public was
to appoint a day of general fasting and prayer, quite an un-
precedented measure in Virginia ; but they rummaged in old

THOMAS JEFFERSON

books “for revolutionary piecedents and forms of the Puri-
tans”, and they finally “cooked up a resolution, somewhat
modernizing their phrases, for appointing the ist day of June
on which the port-bill was to commence, for a day of fasting,
humiliation, and prayer, to implore Heaven to avert from us
the evils of civil war, to inspire us with firmness in support of
our rights, and to turn the hearts of the King and Parliament
to moderation and justice.” ^ Clearly the day of fasting and
prayer did not appear to any of the members of the unofficial
committee as springing from a profound religious sentiment,
but they knew how strong over the people was the power of the
Church, and how impossible it was to unite them except by
giving a religious appearance to a purely political manifesta-
tion, These young Virginia lawyers knew their people and
were not totally unacquainted with mass psychology; they
knew how to play the game of practical politics, despite their
high and disinterested ideal.

The next day Governor Dunmore pronounced the usual
English remedy in such circumstances : the dissolution of the
Assembly. Once more the members met in the Apollo room,
and “they agreed to an association, and instructed the com-
mittee of correspondence to propose to the corresponding com-
mittees of the other colonies to appoint deputies to meet in
Congress at such place annually as would be convenient, to
direct, from time to time, the measures required by the general
interest.”

This passage in the “Autobiography” has led historians into
a spirited controversy as to whether the proposal to form a
Congress originated in Virginia or in Massachusetts, and
whether such a plan had not been discussed in Boston as early
as 1770, Whatever the case may be, the most important part
of the resolution passed in the Raleigh Tavern was not the es-
tablishment of a cobrdinating organism; it was the declara-

1 “Autobiography”, p. 10.

A VIRGINIA LAWYER 45

tion recorded by Jefferson, “that an attack on any one colony
should be considered as an attack on the whole.” This last
part was not a simple administrative provision, it was more
than a promise of a union ; it was the constitution of a new
society, since according to Karnes as quoted by Jefierson in his
“Commonplace Book” “mutual defence against a more power-
ful neighbor is in early times the chief, or sole motive for join-
ing society.”

The deputies went back home and, on the first of June, met
the assemblies of the people “to perform ceremonies of the day
and to address to them discourses suited to the occasion. The
people met generally, with anxiety and alarm in their counte-
nance, and the effect of the day, through the whole colony was
like a shock of electricity, arousing every man and placing him
erect and solid on his centre.” ^

As a result of the train of thought started by the meeting,
the freeholders of Albemarle County adopted on June 26 a
series of resolutions evidently written by Jefferson. Here for
the first time Jefferson declared that ;

The inhabitants of the several States of British America are
subject to the laws which they adopted at their first settlement, and
to such others as have been since made by their respective Legisla-
tures, duly constituted and appointed with their own consent
That no other Legislature whatever can rightly exercise authority
over them , and that these privileges they as the common rights
of mankind, confirmed by the political constitutions they have
respectively assumed, and also by several charters of compact from
the Crown.

The originality of this theory cannot be determined without
comparison with the resolutions adopted a few days before by
the Assembly of Fairfax County presided over by Colonel
George Washington. These came from the pen of George
Mason and they stated with equal emphasis the contractual

^ “Autobiography ” Memorial Edition, I, ii

46 THOMAS JEFFERSON

theory of the government of the British colonies. Whether
JefEerson knew them or not, the similarity with the views
expressed by the freeholders of Albemarle is most striking.

The first article averred the piinciple also found in Jeffer-
son’s “Commonplace Book” that “this colony and Dominion
of Virginia cannot be considered as a conquered country, and
as it was, that the present inhabitants are not of the conquered,
but of the conquerors.” It added that:

Our ancestors, when they left their native land, and settled in
America, brought over with them, even if the same is not confirmed
by Charters, the civil constitution and form of Government of the
country they came from and were by the laws of nature and nations
entitled to all its privileges, immunities and advantages, which have
descended to us, their posterity, and ought of right to be as fully
enjoyed as if we had still continued with the realm of England.

The second article enunciated the most essential and “fun-
damental principle of government”, that the people “could be
governed by no laws to which they had not given their consent
by Representatives freely chosen by themselves.”

The third article declared that the colonies had some duty
to fulfill towards the mother country and admitted that the
British Parliament might, “directed with wisdom and mod-
eration”, take measures to regulate “American commerce”,
although such action was in some degree repugnant to the
principles of the Constitution.^

Whether or not Jefferson had received the Fairfax resolu-
tions before writing the Albemarle declaration, this is the capi-
tal difference between the two documents and the two doc-
trines. On the one hand, George Mason accepted the theory
that the first settlers had brought over with them the civil

^This passage has been, overlooked by Randall, and naturally by Mr Hirst, who
follows Randall very closely here as elsewhere Hirst, p. 69. The Fairfax resolutions
did not recognize the right of the British Parliament to regulate the commerce of the
colony ; they admitted the expediency but denied the right of such a procedure,

A VIRGINIA LAWYER

constitution and form of government of the mother country,
and consequently admitted a permanent connection between
the colony and the metropolis. Jefferson, on the contrary,
asserted with great strength and clarity the complete inde-
pendence of the colonists from the British constitution. They
were subject to no laws except those they had freely adopted
when they had consented to a new compact and foimed a new
society. He was perfectly justified when he declared in his
‘ ' Autobiography ’ ’ :

Our other patriots, Randolph, the Lees, Nicholas, Pendleton,
stopped at the half-way house of John Dickinson, who admitted
that England had a light to regulate our commerce, and to lay
duties on it for the purpose of regulation, but not of raising revenue.
But for this ground there was no foundation in compact, in any
aclcnowledged principles of colonisation, nor in reason , expatriation
being a natural right, and acted on as such by all nations, in all
ages.

This was really the core of the question. Jefferson had
reached that conclusion, not from following a certain line of
abstract reasoning, but after studying the history of the Greek
colonies in Stanyan, and the history of the Saxon settlement
of Great Britain in many authors, as may be seen in his “ Com-
monplace Book”, and he was soon to reaffirm the doctrine of
expatriation as the fundamental principle on which rested all
the claims of the American colonies.

The Virginia Convention was to meet at Williamsburg on
August I, to select delegates to a General Congress of the col-
onies. With all his books at hand, aU his legal authorities, the
precious “Commonplace Book” and aU the repertories he had
gathered in his library, Jefferson proceeded to draft a project
of instructions for the future delegates. He was taken ill on
his way to Williamsburg but forwarded the plan to Peyton
Randolph and P9.trick Henry. Henry never mentioned it;
Randolph informed the convention that he had received such

48 THOMAS JEFFERSON

a paper from a member, prevented by sickness from offering it,
and laid it on the table for perusal. It was read generally by the
members, approved by many, though thought too bold for use
at that time ; but they printed it in pamphlet form, under the
title of “A Summary View of the Rights of British America.”

In some respects it is a more original and more important
document than the Declaration of Independence itself. With
the detailed account of the grievances enumerated by Jefferson
we cannot deal here. A few points, however, deserve special
attention. The difhculties that had arisen between the colonies
and the home government had occasioned the publication of
many pamphlets dealing with the situation. Most of Jeffer-
son’s predecessors, however, had attempted to define in jure
the rights of the British colonies. Thus George Mason had
made his “Extracts” from the Virginia charters, “with some
remarks on them” in 1773, and he had come to the conclusion
already given in the “Fairfax resolves”, that “the ancestors of
the colonists when they had left their native land and settled
in America had brought with them, although not confirmed by
Charters, the civil government and form of government of the
country they came from. ” ^ But he had gone back no farther
in history and had not formulated the principles of the “ con-
stitution” of England. Not so with Jefferson, who emphati-
cally denied that the colonists had anything to do with the
British constitution or with its form of government. He had
studied the history of the settlement of England in Moles-
worth, in Pelloutier, in Sir William Temple, in Dalrymple, and
had come to the conclusion enunciated in the “Rights of Brit-
ish America ” :

That onr ancestors, before their emigration to America, were the
free inhabitants of the British Dominions in Europe, and possessed
a right which nature has given to all men of leaving the country
in which chance, not choice, had placed them, and of seeking out new
‘ George Mason, I, 393,

A VIRGINIA LAWYER

habitations, and there establishing new societies, under such laws
and regulations as, to them, shall seem most likely to promote pubhc
happiness

That their Saxon ancestors had, under this universal law, in like
manner, left their native wilds and woods in the North of Europe,
possessed themselves of the Island of Britain, then less charged
with inhabitants, and established there a system of laws which has
been so long the glory and protection of that country

On another and not less impotlant point, Jefferson was in-
debted to his “Commonplace Book.” He had taken great
care to determine through historical and judicial authorities
the origin of land tenures in the kingdom of England and he
had found that in the good old Saxon times, “upon settling in
the countries which they subdued, the victorious army divided
the conquered lands. That portion which fell to every soldier
he seized as a recompense due to his valour, as a settlement ac-
quired by his own sword. He took possession of it as a free-
man in full property. He enjoyed it during his own life and
could dispose of it at pleasure, or transmit it as an inlieritance
to his children.” It was not imtil after the fifth century that
the king, because as general he was thought fittest to distribute
the conquered lands to each according to his merits, assumed to
himself and was quietly allowed the entire power of the parti-
tion of lands. This abominable system however was not intro-
duced into England before the Nornian Conquest, and thus was
spread the false notion that all lands belonged to the crown.^
Against this last claim, which he believed to rest on a false
conception of history, Jefferson raises an emphatic protest.
Backed by his knowledge of the gradual encroachment of the
feudal system on the natural rights of his Anglo-Saxon ances-
tors, he claimed for the American colonists the same rights as
belonged in the good old Anglo-Saxon days to those who had
acquired a settlement by their own sword.

* See "Commonplace Book”, 229-257.

50 THOMAS JEFFERSON

It is time for us to lay this matter before his Majesty, and to
declare, that he has no right to grant lands of himself From the
nature and purpose of civil institutions, all the lands within the
limits, which any particular party has circumscribed around itself,
are assumed by that society, and subject to their allotment , this
may be done by themselves assembled collectively, or by their
legislature, to whom they may have delegated sovereign authority ;
and, if they are aUoted in neither of these ways, each individual of
the society, may appropriate to himself such lands as he linds vacant,
and occupancy will give him title.

According to this theory, one of the mainstays of the doc-
trine of Americanism, of which Jefferson made himself the advo-
cate, is the right of conquest. But here Jefferson would have
introduced a distinction borrowed from Lord Karnes, for “the
northern nations who overran Europe fought not for glory or
dominion but for habitation” and invaded only countries which
were sparsely populated.^ Whether such a position was tenable
historically is quite another matter. The important point main-
tained by Jefferson is that when the first settlers left Great
Britain for the shores of America, they were not colonists but
free agents. By the mere fact of expatriating themselves they
had severed aU ties with the mother country, they had recov-
ered full possession of aU their natural rights and were at liberty
to agree on a new social compact ; they derived their rights of
property not from the king but from their occupancy of a new
and unsettled territory. All considered, this curious doctrine
was nothing but a sort of sublimation and legal justification of
the pioneer spirit.

This historical and legal demonstration, in which Jefferson
had gone back to the very beginnings of Anglo-Saxon society,
transcended all contemporary discussions on the Rights of the
British Parliament. Jefferson was perfectly aware of its orig-
inality and not a little proud of it. It was in his opinion

* ’‘Commonplace Book”, p. 135,

A VIRGINIA LAWYER 51

the only orthodox or tenable doctrine — that our emigration
from England to this country gave her no more rights over us, than
the emigration of the Danes and Saxons gave to the present authori-
ties of the mother country, over England. In this doctrine, how-
ever, I have never been able to get any one to agree with me but
Mr. Wythe. He concurred in it from the first dawn of the question,
What was the political relation between us and England?

Once the question was clearly put, Jefferson went at it with
the methods used by a lawyer to prove the title to a piece of
property. The first point to be settled was to determine who
was the legitimate owner of the territory occupied by the Ameri-
can “colonists”, the king or the colonists themselves; thus
presented, the question became very simple :

For it is thought that no circumstance has occurred to distinguish
materially, the British from the Saxon emigration. America was
conquered, and her settlements made and firmly established, at the
expense of individuals, and not of the British public. Their own
blood was spilt in acquiring lands for their settlement, their own
fortunes expanded in making this settlement effectual. For them-
selves they fought, for themselves they conquered, and for them-
selves alone they have a right to hold.

This was the keystone of Jefferson’s social system at that
time. It is not unimportant to note that it was a doctrine that
could apply only to Anglo-Saxon colonies, more particularly
to American colonies, and not a doctrine susceptible of mri-
versal application. Whether or not the principle might also
be advanced by other peoples or nations, Jefferson did not
state and did not care. His was not a mind to generalize and
to extend universally any given principle. For the present, at
least, he was satisfied to claim for the American settlers not
the rights of man, but the rights of their Saxon ancestors. His
position was legal and historical, not philosophical.

It was also to some extent an aristocratic position. Since
the land was theirs by right of conquest, it almost necessarily

52 THOMAS JEFFERSON

ensued that only landowners, or to use the old colonial word,
freeholders, were entitled to the rights, privileges, and happi-
ness of self-government. The consequence was not expressed
but it was implied. The analogy with the doctrine of the
Physiocrats strikes one at first; but this analogy is only
superficial. True enough, only freeholders are really worth
considering and can raise a legitimate protest ; but in a country
as new and as extensive as America, it is within the power of
every inhabitant to become a freeholder. For it is another
iniquity to suppose that the Crown has the right to give grants
of land :

It is time for us to lay this matter before his Majesty, and to
declare, that he has no right to giant lands of himself. From the
nature and purpose of civil institutions, all the lands within the
limits, which any particular party has circumscribed around itself,
are assumed by that society, and subject to their allotment ; this
may be done by themselves assembled collectively, or by their
legislature, to whom they may have delegated sovereign authority ;
and, if they are alloted in neither of these ways, each individual of
the society may appropriate to himself such lands as he finds vacant,
and occupancy gives him title.

Thus spoke the pioneer, a pioneer who had studied law and
history and could express in clear and forcible terms what the
pioneers had felt only confusedly. Unless I am much mis-
taken, it is the first enunciation of one of the cardinal principles
of Americanism ; but, as far as Jefferson is concerned, it did
not rest upon any political philosophy, either Hooker’s or
Locke’s. The American settlers resumed and resurrected on
a new soil the tradition interrupted by Parliamentary and
kingly usurpations. By a sort of curious primitivism they re-
nounced their immediate and degraded British forbears to claim
as their true ancestors the Saxon conquerors of the British Isles.
Can any one imagine anything farther from the theory of Rous-
seau in the “Discourse on the Origin of Inequality”, or in the

A VIRGINIA LAWYER

“Social Contract”, anything farther from the universal hu-
manitarianism of the French philosophers ? In a last analysis,
American society as it existed, and as it expressed its will to
exist through its young spokesman, rested essentially not on
an a priori principle but on the right of conquest, or more
exactly, of discovery.

The best student of William and Mary, the young artist
who wanted to make Monticello a thing of beauty, the lover of
the literature of Greece and Rome, proclaimed loudly that
“our ancestors who migrated hither were laborers, not lawyers. ”
His was not a political philosophy dealing with “fictitious prin-
ciples”, it was the harsh, hard-headed, practical and fierce de-
termination of the pioneer who stakes out a piece of land in the
wilderness, ready to hold it against all claim jumpers.

The Virginia convention dominated by “Randolph, the
Lees, Nicholas, Pendleton” was not ready to go so far as the
young master of Monticello. The instructions to the delegates
finally adopted and printed in an appendix to Jefferson’s own
“Autobiography” were exceedingly tame, but his declaration
was printed, widely circulated among the people, and even
reached England. It was just what was needed to set afire
the public mind, for no people will rise, fight and die for an
economic doctrine or in defense of its commercial interests.
They have to be provided with mottoes which appeal to their
imagination, they have to be raised above the ordinary trend
of things ; they must have a banner, a flag and a battle cry, and
such was the object of Jefferson’s peroration, which no Pendle-
ton and no Lee could have written :

That these are our grievances, wliich we have just laid before his
Majesty, with that freedom of language and sentiment which
becomes a free people claiming their rights as derived from the laws
of nature, and not as the gift of their Chief Magistrate, Let those
flatter, who fear ; it is not an American art. To give praise where
it is not due might be well from the venal, but it would ill beseem

54 THOMAS JEFFERSON

those who are asserting the rights of human nature. They know
and will, therefore, say, that Kings are the servants, not the pro-
prietors of the people.

Congress assembled at Philadelphia on September 4, 1774,
under the presidency of Peyton Randolph of Virginia and ad-
journed in October, not without a recommendation “to dis-
countenance every species of extravagance and dissipation,
especially all horse racing, all kinds of gaming, cock-fighting,
exhibitions of shows, plays and other diversions and entertain-
ments.” ^ The colonies were girding their loins for the fight,
society life came to a standstill ; the brilliant days of the little
capital of Virginia were over.

When the counties organized committees of safety, Jeffer-
son was at the top of the list of appointees in his county. He
was again sent to the second convention of Virginia as represen-
tative from Albemarle. The convention met in Richmond,
March 20, 177s, and it was then that Patrick Henry poured
out in a fierce outburst the famous speech ending with the war
cry of “ Give me liberty or give me death.” The resolution to
arm passed with a decided majority and a plan of defense was
adopted. Collisions threatened between the militia and the
regulars on several occasions. But when Lord North’s “Con-
ciliatory Proposition” was received. Lord Dunmore convened
the House of Burgesses on the first of July to take it into con-
sideration. Peyton Randolph was then recalled from Con-
gress and Jefferson appointed to succeed him. He did not
leave, however, before an answer to the proposition had been
drafted. The Virginians did not close the door to a compro-
mise, but insisted that the final answer did not depend on them,
for they considered that they were “bound in honor as well as
interest, to share their general fate with their sister Colonies,
and should hold themselves base deserters of that Union to

‘ Stanard, p. as®-

A VIRGINIA LAWYER S 5

which they had acceeded, were tliey to agree to any measure
distinct and apart from them.”

A few days later Lord Dunmorc left the city and took refuge
on board a man-of-war lying at York, declaring he had taken
this step for his safety. Jefferson departed from Williamsburg
for Philadelphia on the eleventh of June, 1775, and reached the
capital of Pennsylvania on the twentieth. The national role
of the yormg Virginia lawyer and landowner was about to begin.

BOOK TWO

JejJ'erson and the American Revolution

CHAPTER I

THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

When Thomas Jefferson arrived in Philadelphia and took
lodgings with “Ben Randolph” on Chestnut Street, he was
only thirty-three years old, “ the youngest member of Congress
but one.” But he was already known as the author of the
“Summary View of the Rights of British America”, he was
bringing with him Virginia’s answer to Lord North’s “ Concilia-
tory Proposition,” and he had been appointed to succeed as
delegate the fonner President of Congress. Most of all he had
behind him, not only the first colony in population, but also, to
a large extent, all the Southern colonies, which were bound to
follow the course of Virginia.

Unassuming and straightforward, he was at once welcomed
with open arms by the New England leaders, and years later
John Adams still remembered the first impression he made upon
him;

Mr. Jefferson came Into Congress in June 1775, and brought with
him a reputation for literature, science and a happy talent of compo-
sition. . . . Though a silent member in Congress, he was so
prompt, frank, explicit and decisive upon committees and in con-
versation — not even Samuel Adams was more so — that he soon
seized upon my heart.

Five days later, he was placed on the committee appointed
to draw up a “Declaration of the Causes of Taking Up Arms.”
Through deference for the authority of Dickinson, leader of the
conservative party, he withdrew a draft he had prepared and in
the final text he claimed as his only the last four paragraphs.
But these last paragraphs contained some of the sharply coined

6o THOMAS JEFFERSON

sentences that impress themselves on the mind, the final expres-
sion of so many ideas ever since repeated in political speeches
whenever an attempt is made to define America’s ideal policies.

The drafts of Jefferson rejected by the committee have been
found by Mr. Worthington Chauncey Ford, and by him pub-
lished in his edition of the “Journals of the Continental
Congress.” Much more fiery than the final text, they contain
a long and detailed enumeration of the wrongs suffered by the
Colonies, and, to a certain extent, may be considered as a
preliminary draft of the special part of the Declaration of
Independence dealing with the denunciation of George the
Third. Once again the young law'yer reiterated the historical
theory already presented in the “Rights of British America” :

Our forefathers, inhabitants of the island of Great Britain, left
their native land to seek on these shores a residence for civil and
religious freedom. At the expense of their blood, to the ruin of
their fortunes, with the relinquishment of everything quiet and
comfortable in life, they effected settlements in the inhospitable
wilds of America ; and there established civil societies with various
forms of constitution. . . . The political institutions of America,
its various soils and climates opened a certain resource to the
unfortunate and to the enterprising of every country, and ensured
to them the acquisition and free possession of property.

If the text finally adopted fails to justify entirely the claim
of Jefferson, there is little doubt that Dickinson used many of
the ideas expressed by his younger colleague and that the final
paragraphs have a Jeffersonian ring.

Our cause is just. Our union is perfect — our internal resources
are great. . . . We fight not for glory or for conquest. We exhibit
to mankmd the remarkable spectacle of a people attacked by
provoked enemies, without any imputation or even suspicion of
offense. They boast of their privileges and civilization, and yet
proffer no milder condition than servitude or death.

DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE 6i

Thus was the uniqueness of America’s position emphasized
and called to the attention of her own people. Nor was it
forgotten that the country was particularly favored by God,
for it declared that :

We gratefully acknowledge, as signal instance of the Divine
towards us, that His providence would not permit us to be called
into this severe controversy, until we were grown up to our present
strength, had been previously exercised in warlike apparatus, and
possessed of the means of defending ourselves.

Finally, once more was reiterated Jefferson’s favorite con-
tention, the theory which has become one of the fundamental
axioms of the doctrine of Americanism : that America did not
owe anything to the older civilization of Europe, and was a
self-made country :

In our native land, in defence of the freedom that is our birth-
right, and which we ever enjoyed until the late violation of it ; for
the protection of our property, acquired solely by the honest industry
of our forefathers and ourselves, against violence actually offered,
we have taken up arms. We shall lay them down when hostilities
shall cease on the part of the aggressors, and all danger of their being
renewed shall be removed, and not before.

Then came a perfunctory appeal to conciliation, and a final
religious note strictly nonsectarian ; for of his religious faith
the young delegate had retained the form and the tone which
scarcely concealed his deism :

With an humble confidence in the mercies of the supreme and
impartial Judge and Ruler of the Universe, we most devoutly implore
his divine goodness to conduct us happily through this great conflict,
to dispose our adversaries to reconciliation on reasonable terms,
and thereby to relieve the empire from the calamity of civil war.

No wonder this “Declaration” was read amid thundering
huzzas in every market place and amid fervent prayers in
nearly every pulpit in the colonies. With an extraordinary

63 THOMAS JEFFERSON

“ felicity of expression”, with a unique sense of fitness, Jefferson
had struck every chord susceptible of response in every Ameri-
can heart. He had drawn for the people an ideal picture of the
nation and themselves, he had portrayed them as they yearned
to be looked upon by posterity and the nations of the world : he
had formulated the creed of Americanism.

Far more judicial in tone was the neat state paper prepared
by Jefferson to answer Lord North’s “Conciliatory Proposi-
tion.” The committee appointed consisted of Benjamin Frank-
lin, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams and Richard H. Lee. The
youngest member of the committee was chosen to dmw up the
document, the answer of the Virginia Assembly he had brought
with him having been approved. Not for nothing had Jefferson
attended the courts of justice of Albemarle County and Wil-
liamsburg for more than ten years and listened to decisions from
the bench. The answer strives to be a cold, dispassionate
enumeration of facts, with its short paragraphs beginning :
“we are of opinion” — recalling the “Wlier eases” of legal
documents. But there is an undertone of mdignation, cropping
up in every sentence, which belies the studied reserve. The
conclusion, one might call it a peroration, is a genuine specimen
of revolutionary eloquence :

When it considers the great armaments with which they have
invaded us, and the circumstances of cruelty with which these have
commenced and prosecuted hostilities ; when these things, we say,
are laid together and attentively considered, can the world be
deceived into an opinion that we are unreasonable? Or can it
hesitate to believe with us, that nothing but our own exertions may
defeat the ministerial sentence of death or abject submission ?

Truly Jefferson might have become a great orator had he
chosen to correct his handicap in speech and train his voice.
Historians who attribute much importance to racial traits and
inherited characteristics may believe that this was due to the
Welshman that reappeared in him at times ; but the Welsh

DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE 63

temperament was suppressed and checked by the puritanical
restraint of Mr. Small, Mr. Maury, the judicial reserve of Mr.
Wythe, the example of Mr. Peyton Randolph; and, carried
away as he was by Patrick Henry’s oratory, Jefferson saw in
him impulsive and emotional qualities to be admired but to be
shunned. More than any of Iris contemporaries, however, he
was unconsciously influenced by reminiscences of speeches he
had read and momori2ed in Livy, Cicero and perhaps Demos-
thenes. These sentences have a classical ring ; his true models
were the Greek and Latin orators, and if a critical edition of
Jefferson’s early papers were ever attempted, a careful investi-
gation could not fail to bring to light the classical sources of his
inspiration.

The report was adopted on July 31, and Congress adjourned
the next day. Jefferson returned at once to Monticello, to
stay in Virginia until the opening of Congress. In spite of the
fiery tone of the answer to Lord North’s proposition, it seems
that neither he nor any of his friends seriously entertained nor
even considered the possibility of the colonies separating en-
tirely from the mother country. War had already begun, but
it was a civil war. There still remained some hope that an
“everlasting avulsion from Great Britain would be avoided.”
Yet it could be avoided only on one condition : that the British
Government should accept, without reservation or restriction,
the minunum terms of Congress. Jefferson then wrote to his
friend, John Randolph, who had decided to remove to
England :

I would rather be in dependence on Great Britain, properly
limited, than on any nation upon earth, or than on no nation.
But I am one of those, too, who, rather than submit to the rights of
legislation for us, assumed by the British Parliament, and which late
experience has shown they will so cruelly exercise, would lend my
hand to sink the whole island in the ocean. 1

1 To John Randolph, Attorney-general, August 25, 1775. Memorial Edition, TV, 28.

THOMAS JEFFERSON

The manuscript letter in the Library of Congress is not the
one that was used in the different editions of Jefferson’s
“ Works.” It is a much corrected and written-over draft, con-
taining seyeral passages which have disappeared in the pub-
lished text.’^ It contained particularly a request to John
Randolph who was going to “the hub of literature”, to buy
him “books of parliamentary learning.” It also included a
request to Randolph to sell him his fine violin, to which
Randolph acceded, averring that “Tho we may politically
differ in sentiments, yet I see no reason, why privately we may
not cherish the same esteem for each other which formerly I
believe subsisted between us. We both of us seem to be steer-
ing opposite courses ; the success of either lies in the womb of
Time.” ^

Such letters are very significant, for they express better than
long dissertations the state of mind of the leading men of the
day. The question at issue was stUl a political question ; it
was a question of internal politics on which men could differ
without necessarily becoming enemies or losing each other’s
esteem and affection. Less than a year before the Declaration
of Independence, independence seemed to Jefferson the worst
possible solution, to be delayed and avoided if it were possible.

Chosen again as delegate to Congress, but delayed by the
illness and death of his second child, Jefferson reached Phila-
delphia on September 25, twenty days after the opening of the
session. He stayed only until the twenty-eighth of December,
and resumed his seat on May 13 of the following year. In the
meantime events were moving rapidly. Congress had been
advised of the king’s refusal even to notice their second peti-
tion j and Jefferson, writing a second time to John Randolph,
could declare :

Believe me, my dear sir, there is not in the British empire, a man
who more cordially loves a union with Great Britain than I do . But
‘ Jeffeison Papers, Library of Congress. “ August 31, 1775.

DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE 65

by the God that made me, I will cease to exist before I yield to a
connection on such terms as the British Parliament propose ; and
in this I think I speak the sentiment of America. We want neither
inducement nor power, to declare and assert a separation. It is will
alone which is wanting, and that is growing apace under the foster-
ing hand of our King.^

On the sixth of December, a declaration was adopted repu-
diating allegiance to the king, and the British Constitution was
proclaimed “our best inheritance.” Four days previously
Jefferson had drafted a declaration concerning Ethan Allen,
when news arrived of his being arrested and sent to Britain in
irons to be punished for pretended treason. For the first time
the delegate from Virginia referred to the British as “our
enemies” and called upon them to r-espect “the rights of
nations.”

At this juncture and shortly after being appointed on an
important committee, Jefferson abruptly left Congress and set
out for home. The reason for his sudden departure has never
been satisfactorily explained. It may have been due to news
of the bad health of his mother ; she died on March 31, 1776,
and this is the only explanation that Randall could offer. It was
more probably due to his anxiety about the fate of his family.
Communications with Virginia were rare and difficult. He
wrote home regularly every week, but on October 31 he had not
yet received a word “from any mortal breathing”, and on
November 7 he repeated :

“I have never received the script of a pen from any mortal
in Virginia since I left it, nor been able by any inquiries I could
make to hear of my family. I had hoped that when Mrs. Byrd
came I could have heard something of them. The suspense
under which I am is too terrible to be endured. If anything
has happened, for God’s sake let me know it!” Two weeks
later he urged his wife to keep herself “at a distance from

* November 29, 1775. Memorial Edition, IV, 31.

66 THOMAS JEFFERSON

Ld. Dunmore”, and he was planning to meet Eppes “as
proposed.”

There seems to be very little doubt that he yielded to his
anxiety and to the entreaties of Eppes who seems to have urged
him to come back. He had left at Monticello a sick mother,
his sisters, a wife who had recently lost a child and had hardly
recovered from the blow, and he was in constant fear that a
raid from the British troops, who had already burnt Norfolk,
should endanger the lives of his dear ones. Furthermore he
believed that his presence in Philadelphia was not indispen-
sable ; for he was never one who overrated himself. Finally,
a document overlooked by his biographers informs us that on
September 26, 1775, he had been appointed by the Committee
of Safety for the Colony of Virginia, Lieutenant and Com-
mander in chief of the Militia of the County of Albemarle.
In view of Lord Dunmore’s impending attacks his presence was
evidently required to organize local forces. All these are
reasons enough to explain why he left Philadelphia. We do
hot even know that he hesitated at aU or experienced any
conflict of duties. National patriotism was still limited by
fanaily duty, and local patriotism was stronger in him than
obligations to a country which did not yet exist.

So it happened that the man who wrote the Declaration of
Independence was to miss many of the preliminary steps and
discussions that preceded it. He did not resume his seat in
Congress until May 14, 1776. Five days before, a resolution
framed by Adams and R. H. Lee had been adopted, instruct-
ing the colonies to form governments. It was passed the
very day Jefferson arrived in Philadelphia. Not only had he
come back rather reluctantly, but he was anxious to return
to Virginia in order to participate in the work of the Colonial
Convention, as appears from his letter to Thomas Nelson,
Junior :

* Jefferson Papers, library of Congress.

DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE 67

Should our Convention propose to establish now a form of
government, perhaps it might be agreeable to recall for a short
time their delegates. It is a work of the most interesting nature
and such as every individual would wish to have his voice in. . . .
But this I mention to you in confidence, as in our situation, a hint
to any other is too delicate however anxiously interesting the sub-
ject is to our feelings.

With all his attention turned towards the Old Dominion and
in his anxiety to participate in establishing a model form of
government for his “country”, he then decided to send to
Pendleton, President of the Assembly, the draft of a proposed
constitution for Virginia, or rather, as he termed it, “A Bill for
new modelling the form of government and for establishing the
Fundamental principles of our future constitution.” ^ This
is a capital document for the history of Jefferson’s political
thought. For the first time he had the opportunity to develop
fully his views on society and government. How clear in his
mind were the theories of which he later became the advocate
will be easily perceived. The draft started with a recital of the
grievances of the colony against “ George Guelph King of Great
Britain”, which Jefferson was to utilize in the Declaration of
Independence. It declared that “The Legislative, Executive,
and Judiciary shall be forever separate” and continued with a
description of the three branches of government. For the
Legislative, JeSerson proposed a bicameral system, consisting
of a House of Representatives and a Senate. The House was
to be elected by “all male persons of full age and sane mind
having a freehold estate in (one fourth of an acre) of land in
any town or in 25 acres of land in the county and all persons
resident in the colony who shall have paid scot and lot to
government the last two years.” The Senate was to be
appointed by the House of Representatives. The death
penalty was abolished for all crimes except murder and offences

* The full text will be found in the Ford Edition, II, 7.

THOMAS JEFFERSON

in the military service ; torture was abolished in all cases what-
soever. Some of these provisions were incorporated later in
the “Bill for Apportioning Crimes and Punishment.” The
Administrator was to be appointed by the House of Represent-
atives, as well as the Attorney-general and the Privy Cormcil.
Judges were to be appointed by the Administrator and Privy
Council ; the High Sheriffs and Coroners of counties were to be
elected annually by the voters, but all other officers, civil and
military, to be appointed by the Administrator. The bill
proposed that “descents shall go according to the laws of
Gavelkind, save only that females shall have equal rights with
males.” — “All persons shall have full and free liberty of
religious opinion; nor shall any be compelled to support or
maintain any religious institution.” “Prmting presses shall
be free except so far as by commission of private injury cause
may be given of private action. There shall be no standing
army but in time of actual war.” The introduction of slaves
into the State was forbidden. Finally provisions were made
for the revision of the Constitution.

Truly most of the reforms advocated by Jefferson are already
contained in this dociunent, not implicitly but explicitly : reli-
gious freedom, freedom of the press, abolition of slavery, the
laws of descent and the bill to abolish entail, the “Bill for
Proportioning Crimes and Punisliment” are all here. It was
a bold and radical proposal, and no wonder the young
delegate from Virginia was anxious to go home in order to
defend it before his colleagues of the Assembly. The dele-
gates, after much wrangling, had come to practical agreement
on the most important points. It was too late and they
were too “tired” of the subject to resume the discussion.
From Jefferson’s plan they simply borrowed the long recital
of grievances which became the preamble to the Virginia
Constitution.^

^ See “Life of G. Ma$on”, I, Appendix.

DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE 6g

As finally adopted, the Constitution was far less liberal than
the plan proposed by Jefferson, and this may explain his severe
criticism of it in his “Notes on Virginia” (Query XIII). It
embodied, however, some of the same essential principles ; it
proclaimed the separation of powers and established two
Chambers. It retained the name of governor, redolent of the
English regime, instead of “administrator” ; it made no men-
tion of slavery, entails, descents and freedom of the press, but
in some respects it was even more democratic than the Jeffer-
son plan since both houses were directly elected. In the mean-
time things were coming to a head in Philadelphia, and on
June 7 “certain resolutions concerning independence being
moved and adopted, it was

Resolved, That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to
be, free and independent States, that they are absolved from all
allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection
between them and the State of Great Britain is, and ought to be,
totally dissolved.

That it is expedient forthwith to take the most effectual measures
for forming foreign Alliances.

That a plan of confederation be prepared and transmitted to the
respective Colonies for their consideration and approbation.^

On June lo, it was

Resolved, That the consideration of the first resolution be post-
poned to this day, three weeks (July i), and in the meanwhile, that
no time be lost in case the Congress agree thereto, that a committee
be appointed to prepare a declaration to the effect of the said first
resolution.

The next day it was resolved, That the committee to prepare the
declaration consist of five members: The members chosen, Mr.
[Thomas] Jefferson, Mr. J[ohn] Adams, Mr. [Benjamin] Franklin,
Mr. [Roger] Sherman, and Mr. R[obert] R. Livingston.®

1 “ Jonroals of Congress”, V, 423 .

^Ihid. , V, 431'

THOMAS JEFFERSON

JefEerson’s biographers have indulged in a great many dis-
cussions about the reasons which determined the selection of
the committee. Jefferson certainly did not seek the honor, and
little did he dream at the time that it would bring him such
fame. Without renewing the old controversy on the partici-
pation of the other members of the committee in the drawing
up of the famous document, a few facts have to be considered.
First of all it was not an improvisation. The committee
appointed on June lo reported only on June 28. A written
draft was submitted to Adams and Franklin, whose advice
could not be neglected, and they suggested several modifica-
tions, additions and corrections. Furthermore, Jefferson was
too good a harmonizer not to discuss many points with his
colleagues of the committee, so as to ascertain their views before
writing down the first draft. Even the desirability of having
a declaration was a highly controversial question, and Jefferson
himself, in the detailed notes he took of the preliminary dis-
cussion, indicates that when the committee was appointed
“the colonies of New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Del-
aware and South Carolina were not yet matured for falling from
the parent stem.’”-

On Jime 28, the committee appointed to prepare a declara-
tion brought in a draft which was read and "Ordered to lie on
the table.” On July 2, Congress resumed the consideration of
the resolution agreed to by and reported from the committee
of the whole; and the same being read, was agreed to as
follows.

Resolved, That these United Colonies are, and, of right, ought to
be Free and Independent States; that they are absolved from
allegiance to the British crown, and that all political connexion be-
tween them, and the state of Great Britain, is, and ought to be,
totally dissolved.

’• "■Autobiogiapliy." Memorial Edition, I, 25-

DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE 71

Properly speaking this is, as Mr. Becker has remarked, the
real Declaration of Independence. But the principle once
adopted, it remained to proclaim and explain the action taken
by Congress not only to the people of the Free and Independent
States, but to the world at large. Congress then resolved itself
into a committee of the whole, only to decide that it was too
late in the day to take up such a momentous question. The
discussion continued on the next day but Harrison reported
that the committee, not having finished, desired leave to sit
again. On July 4, Congress resolved itself into a committee
of the whole to take into further consideration the Declaration ;
and after some time, the president resumed the chair. “Mr.
(Benjamin) Harrison reported, that the committee of the
whole Congress have agreed to a Declaration, which he delivered
in. The Declaration being again read, was agreed to.” Con-
gress then ordered that the Declaration be authenticated and
printed, and the committee appointed to prepare the Declar-
ation “to superintend and correct the press.”

Such is briefly told from the “Journals of Congress” the
story of the momentous doemnent in its external details. It
has been too well related by Mr. Becker and Mr. Fitzpatrick to
leave any excuse for a new account. Writing many years
later, John Adams declared “ there is not an idea in it but what
had been hackneyed in Congress two years before,” and reply-
ing to Adams’ insinuations, JeSerson admitted that :

Pickering’s observations, and Mr. Adams’ in addition, that it
contained no new ideas, that it is a commonplace compilation, its
sentiments hacknied in Congress for two years before . . . may be
all true. Of that I am not judge. Richard H. Lee charged it as
copied from Locke’s treatise on Government ... I only know
that I turned to neither book nor pamphlet while writing it. I did
not consider it as any part of my charge to invent new ideas alto-
gether and to offer no sentiment which had never been expressed
before.

THOMAS JEFFERSON

In another letter to Lee, written in 1825, a year before his
death, Jefferson had given, as his last and final statement on
the subject :

Not to find out new principles, or new arguments, never before
thought of, not merely to say things which had never been said
before; but to place before mankind the common sense of the
subject, in terms so plain and firm as to command their assent. . . .
Neither aiming at originality of principles or sentiments, nor yet
copied from any particular and previous writing, it was intended
to be an expression of the American mind. . . . All its authority
rests on the harmonizing sentiments of the day, whether expressed
in conversation, in letters, printed essays, on the elementary books
of public right, as Aristotle, Cicero, Locke, Sidney, etc.

Two phrases in this letter deserve particular notice, “an
expression of the American mind” and “the harmonizing senti-
ments of the day.” This is truly what Jefferson had attempted
to express in his “felicitous language” — the confused yearn-
ings, the inarticulate aspirations, the indefinite ideals of the
speechless and awkward n^asses. He did it in words so simple
that no man could fail to understand it, in sentences so well
balanced and so rhythmic that no artist in style could improve
upon them. The Declaration of Independence is not only a
historical document, it is the first and to this day the most
outstanding monument in American literature. It does not
foUow, however, that Jefferson had no model. Mr. Becker in
his masterly study has demonstrated that it was the final devel-
opment of a whole current of thought, the origins of which can
be traced back in history even farther than he has done. The
Declaration of Independence is essentially of Lockian origin,
but it does not ensue that Jefferson had memorized Locke, nor
even that he was conscious, when he wrote the document, that
he was using a Lockian phraseology. As a matter of fact, even
if he remembered Locke, it is more than probable that remi-
niscences from two other more modem expressions of the same

DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE 73

idea haimted his mind. The first was a pamphlet of James
Wilson, written in 1770, published in Philadelphia in 1774 and
entitled “Considerations on the Nature and Extent of the
Legislative Authority of the British Parliament.” Mr. Becker
has pointed out the similarity between a passage in Wilson and
the preamble. Since then I have found that, in his “ Common-
place Book”, Jefferson copied passages from Wilson’s pamphlet,
although for reasons which I could not determine he omitted
the very passage which presents the most striking resemblance :

All men are, by nature, equal and free : No one has a right to
any authority over another without his consent : All lawful govern-
ment is founded on the consent of those who are subject to it :
Such consent was given with a view to ensure and to increase the
happiness of the governed above what they could enjoy in an inde-
pendent and unconnected state of nature. The consequence is, that
the happiness of the society is the First law of every government.

A Lockian theory to be sure, but Wilson in the footnote to
this paragraph quoted Burlamaqui to the effect that “This
right of sovereignty is that of commanding finally but in order
to procure real felicity ; for if this end is not obtained, sover-
eignty ceases to be legitimate authority.” But this is not all I
The Declaration of Rights of 1774 (“Journal of Congress”, I,
373) stated in somewhat similar terms the rights of the inhab-
itants of the English colonies. Fmally the “Virginia Bill of
Rights” written by George Mason, adopted by the Virginia
Assembly on June 12 and necessarily forwarded to the delegates
in Congress, contained articles resembling more closely those of
the Declaration of Independence :

I. That all men are by nature equally free and independent, and
have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state
of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive their posterity ;
namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquir-
ing and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness
and safety.

74 THOMAS JEFFERSON

II. That all power is vested in, and consequently derived from
the people ; that Magistrates are their trustees and servants, and
at all times amenable to them.

III. That government is or ought to be, instituted for the com-
mon benefit, protection and security of the people, nation, or
community; of all the various modes and forms of government,
that is best, which is capable of producing the greatest degree of
happiness and safety, and is most effectually secured against the
danger of mal-administration ; and that when any government
shall be found inadequate or contrary to these purposes, a majority
of the community has the undubitablc, unalienable right, to reform,
alter, or abolish it, in such manner as shall be judged most conducive
to the public weal.^

This time it is no longer a question of analogy, or similarity
of thought — the very words are identical, “Unalienable
rights” is the expression which finally replaced “undeniable”
in the final form — and “pursuing and obtaining happiness”
has become the well-known “pursuit of happiness.” Does it
mean that Jefferson should be accused of plagiarism? Not m
the least, since, as the French author said, ‘^V arrangement esl
nouveau”, and, in a work of art, “V arrangement” constitutes
true originality, according to the formula of the classical
schooL Furthermore, it was clearly Jefferson’s role and
duty as a delegate from Virginia to incorporate in the
Declaration as much as he could of the “Bill of Rights”
recently adopted by his native dominion. The only fault
that could be found is that he did not more clearly acknowl-
edge his mdebtedness to George Mason. But his contem-
poraries, and particularly the Virginians, could not fail to
recognize in the national document the spirit and expression
of the State document. Jefferson had expressed the American
mind but he had above all expressed the mind of his fellow
Virginians.

* “Life and Correspondence of G. Mason”, I, 438.

DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE 75

Whether the doctrine enunciated in the Declaration of Inde-
pendence is founded in fact and is beyond question “undeni-
able”, is a problem which cannot even be touched upon here.
We cannot dismiss it, however, without mentioning a feature
which seems to have escaped most American students of polit-
ical philosophy, probably because it has become such an inte-
gral part of American life that it is not even noticed. I do not
believe that any other State paper in any nation had ever pro-
claimed so emphatically and with such finality that one of the
essential functions of govermnent is to make man happy, or
that one of his essential natural rights is “the pursuit of hap-
piness.” This was more than a new principle of government,
it was a new principle of life which was thus proposed and
officially indorsed. The most that could be asked from govern-
ments of the Old World was to promote virtue and to main-
tarn justice; honor, “amor patriae" and fear were the essen-
tial principles on which rested the governments described by
Montesquieu. But in spite of the eternal and unquenchable
thirst for happiness in the heart of every man, what European,
what Frenchman particularly, could openly and officially main-
tain that the “pursuit of happiness” was a right, and that
happiness could be reached and truly enjoyed. This quest of
happiness had been the main preoccupation of French phil-
osophers during the eighteenth century, but in spite of their
philosophical optimism, they were too thoroughly imbued with
pessimism ever to think that it was possible to he happy ;
the most they could hope for was to become less unhappy. The
whole Christian civilization had been built on the idea that
happiness is neither desirable nor obtainable in this vale of
tears and affliction, but as a compensation Christianity offered
eternal life and eternal bliss. The Declaration of Independence,
on the contrary, placed human life on a new axis by maintain-
ing that happiness is a natural right of the individual and the
whole end of government. To be sure, the idea was not original

y6 THOMAS JEFFERSON

with Jefferson, it had been mentioned more than once in official
or semi-ofl&cial documents, it was in James Wilson, as in the
Bill of Rights, but I cannot quite conceive that such a formula
could have originated in New England. I cannot conceive
either that it could have been proclaimed at that date any-
where except in a new country where the pioneer sj^irit domi-
nated, where men felt that they could live without bemg
crowded or hampered by fierce competition, traditions, and
iron-bound social laws.

In his plan for a Declaration des droits de I’komme et du citoyen,
Lafayette some twelve years later included “la recherche du
bonheur”, in memory of the American Declaration of Inde-
pendence, but “la recherche du bonheur” disappeared in the
committee and was never mentioned again in any of the three
Declarations of the French Revolution. The nearest approach
to it is found in the first article of the Declaration of June 23,
1793 ; but it simply states that the aim of society is common
happiness — and this is quite a different idea. Whether it was
right or not, Jefferson, when he reproduced the terms used by
George Mason in the Virginia Bffl of Rights, gave currency to
an expression which was to influence deeply and even to mold
American life.

In that sense, it may be said that the Declaration of Inde-
pendence represents the highest achievement of eighteenth-
century philosophy, but of one aspect of that philosophy that
could not develop fully in Europe. Trees that are transplanted
sometimes thrive better under new skies than in their native
habitat and may reach proportions wholly unforeseen.

Thus the Declaration of Independence written to express
the sentiments of the day probably shaped the American mind
in an unexpected manner. It was essentially a popular docu-
ment planned to impress the masses, to place before the young
nation at its birth a certain ideal and a certam political faith,
but it was also a legal and judicial document intended to make

DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE 77

more precise the reasons why the united American colonies had
finally resolved to separate from the mother country.

For this part of the Declaration Jefferson drew largely from
the "Constitution” he had drafted for Virginia and sent to
Randolph by Mr. Wythe. He was his own source — the more
so as he substantially repeated many of the grievances enumer-
ated two years earlier in the “Rights of British America.” But
here again he markedly unproved the first version, which was a
monotonous recital of dry facts, starting with a legal ‘ ‘ Whereas ”
and beginning each article with a clumsy participle. “By
denying his Governor permission ; ... By refusing to pass
certain other laws ... By dissolving Legislative Assemblies,”
became in the Declaration the dramatic presentation of facts
by a prosecuting attorney and not the summing-up of a case by
a judge. But the final renunciation of the mother country has
an unsurpassed dignity, a finality more terrible in its lofty and
dispassionate tone than any curse :

“We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which
denovmces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest
of mankind. Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.” There agam
one is reminded of the well-known French formula: “beau
comme V antique.’’ Twice in its history the supposedly yomg
and vmcultured people had the rare fortune to find spokesmen
who, without effort and laborious preparation, reached the
utmost heights. The Declaration of Independence, with its
solemn renunciation of ties of consanguinity, reminds one of
the tone of the Greek tragedy ; while the only parallel to the
Gettysburg address is the oration pronomiced by Pericles over
the warriors who had laid down their lives during the first war
of Peloponnesus,

Such heights can only be reached if the author is moved to
his innermost depths. Singularly unimaginative in ordinary
circumstances, for once in his life Jefferson was superior to
himself : the student of Greece, the refined Virginian, became

78 THOMAS JEFFERSON

truly the voice of the people. But great effects often have
small causes. We may wonder if he would have spoken
with that same suppressed emotion, fiercely burning and
yet controlled, if at that very time he had not been
laboring mrder an emotional stress that never recurred in
his life.

While he was in Philadelphia, writing the first draft in which
he opened to the people of America “the road to glory and
happiness”, he could well wonder whether his personal
happiness was not about to be destroyed. — His mother had
recently died, he had just lost a child and had left in Monticello
a beloved companion dangerously ill. “Every letter brmgs me
such an account of the state of her health, that it is with great
pain I can stay here,” he wrote to Page (July 20, 1776), and for
those who knew how reserved he was in the expression of per-
sonal feelings, the restraint in his expression hardly conceals
the anxiety and distress by which he was torn.

There were also other reasons for his desiring to go home.
Jefferson had always understood that as a delegate to Congress
his duty was not so much to make a record for himself as to
voice the sentiments of the people he represented and to carry out,
their instructions} He was much worried about his standing
with the Virginia Convention and suspected that some members
were trying to knife him in the back. The Convention had just
proceeded to elect delegates for the next Congress. Harrison
and Braxton had failed to be reappointed, and Jefferson was
“next to the lag.” — “It is a painful situation,” he wrote to
William Fleming, on July first, “to be 300 miles from one’s
county, and thereby opened to secret assassination without a
possibility of self-defence.” ®

A week later, he wrote to Edmund Pendleton to decline his
new appointment as a delegate to Congress ;

'■ To Thonias Nelson, May t6, 1776, Memorial Edition, IV, 253.

® “Writings”, Ford, 11 , 41.

DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE 79

I am sorry that the situation of my domestic affairs, renders it
indispensably necessary that I should solicit the substitution of
some other person here in my room. The delicacy of the House will
not require me to enter minutely into the private causes which
render this necessary. I trust they will be satisfied. I would not
urge it again, were it not unavoidable.'

On July 8 he announced to R. H. Lee that he would return
to Virginia after the eleventh of August. It was not until
September 2 that, his successor having arrived, he considered
himself as free to go. His final reason, possibly not the least
important, is given by Jeffersonhimsclf mhis “Autobiography” :

Our delegation had been renewed for the ensuing year, com-
mencing August 1 1 ; but the new government was now organized,
a meeting of the legislature was to be held in October, and I had
been elected a member by my county. I knew that our legislation,
under the regal government, had many vicious points which urgently
required reformation, and I thought I could be of more use in for-
warding that work. I therefore retired from my seat in Congress on
the ad of September, resigned it and took my place in the Legislature
of my State, on the 7th of October.

“My state,” wrote Jefferson in 1818, but in his letters to
William Fleming he was speaking of Virginia as his “country”,
and at that time constantly referred to the colonies and not
the United States.

The necessity of some sort of a rmion or confederacy had been
keenly realized for a long time, but the ways and means were far
from receiving unanimous support. As a matter of fact, union
had been obtained just on the point of secession, or as Jefferson
had it “avulsion from Great Britain” ; but the consciousness of
solidarity, the community of ideals and interests which con-
stitute an essential part of patriotism hardly existed at that
date. Thus the man who had just been the voice of America
probably felt himself more of a Virgiaian than of an American,

iFord, II, 61.

8 o THOMAS JEFFERSON

for local patriotism was very strong, while national patriotism
was still in a larval stage. For a student of government this
was the most fascinating situation which could be devised,
since he was to witness the formation of a new society and the
signing of a social compact. Jefferson attended all the meetings
of Congress in which the Articles of Confederation were dis-
cussed. He took copious notes and inserted them in his
“Autobiography”, but he refrained from expressing his own
opinion on the matter. It is not unlikely, however, that he
had already given considerable attention to the subject, as
appears from many entries in his “ Commonplace Book.” ’■

In the first edition of this study was inserted at this point
a document which I erroneously attributed to Jefferson, when,
in fact, it came from the pen of Thomas Paine and was probably
written ten years later. While expressing my regrets and
apologies to the writers who have been misled by this false
attribution, I still beheve that it sums up so concisely the
early philosophy of Thomas Jefferson that it may not be out of
place to reproduce it again.*

After I got home, being alone and wanting amusement I sat down
to explain to myself (for there is such a thing) my Ideas of natural
and civil rights and the distinction between them — I send them to
you to see how nearly we agree.

Suppose 20 persons, strangers to each other, to meet in a country
not before inhabited. Each would be a sovereign in his own natu-
ral right. His will would be his Law, — but his power, in many
cases, inadequate to his right, and the consequence would be that
each might be exposed, not only to each other but to the other
nineteen.

1 See my editian, Baltimore, 1926, particularly Articles 750 and 783 and supra,
pp. 46-49.

» The initial sentences had already appeared in “ Common Sense ” and the whole
discussion was printed in a more didactic and positive form in the “Rights of Man.’!
The document as published here had already been printed by Conway in his “ Life of
Thomas Paine ”, I, 233, I had already called attention to this error in my edition of
“The Correspondence of Jefferson and Du Pont de Nemours”, Baltimore, 1931, p.
Ixxiii.

V. ..

/r • ,^Y^,i AajZtuty

yy<^r^^ rt cA^/f.ifAeuA-

^^/^/^^/-.- Lyhut t!)£^

‘ ' /

^I'lliiir CC- ,

/e>u^ '/^o/tttit u a.^ ayi.^

OtitLO ttiiLAt^aA-Ay ; A A ~/hu^

' jjauttju^ ci2 J*-

. ,.' " ^ ^ (,/

l'pa^eAtj..£y

-•/t.a yict a.^£eycu£<j

d, ^

///< ^ -/^^////r^<• /4t^C€r^ -
/itytmCep iVt y^eru* Xt //t,

/* • ^ ^
C^^Jf/rffrrftf fy,i^ *<^-J

/Cyj‘i If ‘At- _ ' / ef^AAttit, . ' aa-A/tyvi^t-tK. >
/J Jttttfr^ tf ttt-C. ^ f -t-f-oAA-y/ft—"

Lafayette’s “declaration oe the rights op
man”, with the corrections of jefperson
'Prom the manuscript in the possession of Ike Library of Congress

DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE 8i

It would then occur to them that their condition would be much
improved, if a way could be devised to exchange that quantity of
danger into so much protection, so that each individual should
possess the strength of the whole number. As all their rights, in the
first case are natural rights, and the exercise of those rights sup-
ported only by their own natmal individual power, they would
begin by distinguishing between these rights they could individually
exercise fully and perfectly and those they could not.

Of the first kind arc the rights of thinking, speaking, forming and
giving opinions, and perhaps all those which can be fully exercised by
the individual without the aid of exterior assistance — or in other
words, rights of personal competency — Of the second kind are
those of personal protection of acquiring and possessing property, in
the exercise of which the individual natural power is less than the
natural right.

Having drawn this line they agree to retain individually the first
Class of Rights or those of personal Competency, and to detach
from their personal possession the second Class, or those of defective
power and to accept in lieu thereof a right to the whole power
produced by a condensation of all the parts. These I conceive to
be civil rights or rights of Compact, and are distinguishable from
Natural rights, because in the one we act wholly in our own person,
in the other we agree not to do so, but act imder the guarantee of
society.

It therefore follows that the more of those imperfect natural
rights, or rights of imperfect power we give up and thus exchange
the more securely we possess, and as the word liberty is often
mistakenly put for security M* Wilson has confused his Argument
by confounding the terms.

But it does not follow that the more natural rights of every hind we
resign the more securely we possess, — because if we resign those of
the first class we may suffer much by the exchange, for where the
right and the power are equal with each other in the individual
naturally they ought to rest there

M' Wilson must have some allusion to this distinction or his
position would be subject to the inference you draw from it.

THOMAS JEFFERSON

I consider the individual sovereignty of the States retained under
the Act of Confederation to be of the second Class of rights. It
becomes dangerous because it is defective in the power necessary to
support it. It answers the pride and purpose of a few men in each
state — but the State collectively is injured by it.

There remains little doubt that these views were entirely
shared by Jefferson if indeed they had not been suggested by
him in conversations with his friend. Fie expressed them as
his own in a letter written to Colonel Humphreys, in March
1789, and wrote to Monroe after the publication of “The
Rights of Man” that he professed the same principles as the
author.’^ It remains however to determine whether he pro-
fessed them earlier in his career. This would probably be
unlikely, if these views and this distinction were as original
as I represented them ten years ago. As a point of fact, they
were nothing more than the elaboration of a distinction with
which all law students of the time were familiar and which had
necessarily been estabhshed dining the long controversy about
the origin of natural laws. Thomas Paine and Jefferson
may have drawn from Burlamaqui who had simply followed
Christian Wolff as pointed out by Professor Wiltse and more
recently by Professor Harvey.^

More immediately, the document sent by Paine to Jefferson,
“to see how nearly we agree ”, reflects the distinction found in
Blackstone, who simply sums up many other jurists, between
“ the law of nature ” and ‘ ‘ mmiicipal law . , . being thus defined
by Justinian jus civile est quod quisqiie sibi fopulus constiiuit.” ^
Blackstone did not fail either to distinguish between “ absolute ”
and “relative rights” and to declare significantly that :

^ “Memorial edition'’, VII, 323; VIII, 207, and this volume, p. 201.

“ C. M. Wiltse, “Jeffersonian Tradition in American Democracy”, Chapel lEll,
193s, P 74; R- E- Harvey, “Jean Jacques Burlamaqui”, Chapel Hill, 1937, p, 122.
See also the remarkable discussion of James Truslow Adams, "The Living Jefferson ”,
New York, 1936, pp. 79-84

’ “Commentaries on tire Laws of England”, Introduction, sect. 2, 44,

DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE 83

The principal aim of society is to protect individuals in the
enjoyment of those absolute rights which were vested in them by
the immutable laws of nature ; but which could not be preserved
in peace without that mutual assistance and intercourse which is
gained by the institution of friendly and social communities. Hence
it follows that the first and primary end of human laws is to maintain
and regulate these absohite rights of individuals. Such rights as
are social and relative result from, and are posterior to, the formation
of states and societies.” ^

This is the general idea that underlies the second paragraph
of the Declaration of Independence in which it is stated that
“to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men,
deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”
Thus, in forming a social compact, men do not abdicate all
their sovereignty ; they do not even abdicate a certain portion
of all their rights. On the contrary, they obtain from society
a security and a fuller enjoyment of their natural rights than
they could enjoy in a complete state of nature. The social
compact is no longer a pactum subjeciionis ; there is no longer
any question of deciding whether in a society the individual
or the society are sovereign, since the primary object of society
is to increase the security and the rights of its members.^

That not only JeSerson, but also the other members of the
committee, had such a distinction in mind appears clearly
in the enumeration of “certain unalienable rights” with which
men have been endowed by their Creator, “that among these
are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

It is worth notiemg that the “Declaration on Violation of
Rights” adopted by the First Continental Congress had

1 Ibid., Book I, ch I, 124.

2 Such an idea reappears in the speeches of James "Wilson. In addition to his
speech “On the Legislative Authority of The British Parliament’', discussed by
Professor Becker, see his “Speech delivered in the Convention for the Province of
Pennsylvania, in January 177s”, and particularly his declaration that “our ancestors
were never inconsiderate enough to trust those rights, which God and nature had
given them, unreservedly into the hands of their princes,”

84 THOMAS JEFFERSON

specified that the inhabitants of the British Colonies were
“entitled to life, hberty & property.” ^

The Virginia Bill of Rights had similarly declared that
among the inherent natural rights was the means of acquiring
and possessing property.

Now, in the preamble to the Declaration of Independence
which follows so closely the Bill of Rights, the word “property”
does not appear, while the other rights are reasserted. It is
similarly omitted in all the preliminary drafts which have been
preserved. The omission of such an important term could
hardly be accidental, and it must certainly have been noticed
by the different members of the committee, and particularly
by Adams and Frankhn who inserted several corrections in
the rough draft. It becomes particularly significant if we
remember, in addition, that when Lafayette submitted to
Jefferson his “Declaration des droits de Thomme”, Jefferson
put in brackets the words “droit d la propriete", thus suggesting
their elimination from the list of “natural rights.”

Yet neither Jefferson nor his fellow members on the commit-
tee were in any way “communists”, and it would be a serious
error to see in that dehberate omission the influence of Rous-
seau’s “ Discours sur I’origine de I’in^gaht^.” The fact is
that Jefferson and his colleagues had taken the position that
the rights of acquiring and possessing property had to be
protected by society in order to be enjoyed securely.

Such a philosophy of natural rights, far from being revolu-
tionary or “radical”, represented the traditional and almost
orthodox view of the majority of the political thinkers. In fact,
on this particular point Jefferson and his associates departed not
from tradition and what was considered at the time as sound
legalistic doctrine, but from Locke, who was the first to include
property among the natural rights, and from the French Physi-
ocrats who were more interested in property than in liberty.

“Journals of Congress”, October 14, 1774, 1 , 67.

DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE 85

At any rate, it seems that already at that time Jefferson had
formulated in his mind a philosophy of society to which he
remained loyal and which he reiterated on several occasions
during the rest of his career. The words “unalienable
Rights” in the Declaration of Independence meant exactly
what they said. While Locke had said that one divests oneself
of one’s liberty in assuming the bonds of civil society, while
Rousseau had declared that man sacrifices all his natural
rights on the altar of society, Jefferson believed with Blackstone
and with Lord Karnes, the Scottish jurist from whom he had '
copied many passages in his Commonplace Book, that “Mutual
defence against a more powerful neighbor being in early times
the chief, or sole motive for joining in society, individuals
never thought of surrendering any of their natural rights which
could be retained consistently with their great aim of mutual
defence.” Hence the necessity of a Bill of Rights, in which the
individual accepts certain limitations in order to obtain a corre-
sponding amount of security, and specifically enumerates those
of his natural rights he means to keep integrally and wholly.

This at the same time explains clearly why Jefferson, who
is represented as the champion of State rights, not only accepted
the abridgment of State sovereignty but declared that the
retention by the States of certain rights was dangerous and
illogical. Hence his insistence throughout his life on the
prerogatives of the Federal Government in all matters referring
to foreign policies, and his reiterated declarations in favor of
State rights. The social compact is not a metaphysical
hypothesis, nebulous and lost in the night of ages ; it is a
very specific and very precise convention to be entered into
or to be denounced by men, or groups, who remain free and
yet agree to submit themselves to certain rules in order to
obtain more security. And thus was evolved and formulated
a combination of liberty and order, individualism and discipline
which lies at the basis of American civilization.

CHAPTER II

THE REVISION OF THE LAWS OF VIRGINIA

At the meeting of July 4, 1776, Congress, after adopting the
Declaration of Independence,

“Resolved, That Dr. Franklin, Mr. J. Adams and Mr. Jefferson,
be a committee, to bring in a device for a seal for the United States
of America.” ^

Among the several suggestions made in the committee, the
one proposed by Jefferson, according to John Adams, deserves
particular attention : “Mr. Jefferson proposed, the children of
Israel in the wilderness led by a cloud by day, and a pillar by
night — and on the other side, Hengist and Horsa, the Saxon
chiefs, from whom we claim the honor of being descended, and
whose political principles and form of government we have
assumed.”

None of the suggestions made by the committee, or their
final report, was ever adopted, but the device proposed by
Jefferson is a significant indication that his thoughts were stiff
nmning in the same channel. “The children of Israel” would
remind one of the favorite contention of the settlers, piously
preserved by their descendants to this day, that they were a
chosen people ; but the other side of the seal reminds one that
Jefferson’s great ambition at that time was to promote a
renaissance of Anglo-Saxon primitive institutions on the new
continent. Thus presented, the American Revolution was
nothing hut the reclamation of the Anglo-Saxon birthright of
which the colonists had been deprived by “a long trend of

> “ Journals of Congress ”, V., 517.

REVISION OF LAWS OF VIRGINIA 87

abuses.” Nor does it appear that there was anything in this
theory which surprised or shocked his contemporaries ; Adams
apparently did not disapprove of it, and it would be easy to
bring in many similar expressions of the same idea in docu-
ments of the time.

The principle once established, there remained to put it into
effect, and to make a beginning in Virginia. This was the
thought uppermost in Jefferson’s mind when he went back to
the Old Dominion, “Are we not the better for what we have
hitherto abolished of the feudal system,” he wrote to Edmund
Pendleton. “Has not every restitution of the antient Saxon
laws had happy effects ? Is it not better now that we return
at once into that happy system of our ancestors, the wisest,
and most perfect ever yet devised by the wit of man, as it stood
before the 8th century?”^ This is the true foundation of
Jefferson’s political philosophy. No greater mistake could
be made than to look for his sources in Locke, Montesquieu,
or Rousseau. The Jeffersonian democracy was born under the
sign of Hengist and Horsa, not of the Goddess Reason.

On September 26, 1776, Congress proceeded to the election
of commissioners to the Court of France, and the ballots being
taken, Mr. Benjamin Franklin, Mr. Silas Deane, and Mr.
Thomas Jefferson were chosen. This was a signal recognition
of the prestige of the young author of the Declaration of In-
dependence. An express was sent at once to Jefferson to in-
form him of his appointment. For the first time he was offered
an opportunity to visit the Old World. His desire to go was
so strong that he remained undecided for three days before he
made up his mind to decline the nomination and to send his
refusal to Hancock. In the letter he then wrote, he alleged
that “ circumstances very peculiar in the situation of my family,
such as neither permit me to leave nor to carry it compel me
to ask leave to declme a service so honorable and at the same

1 August 13, 1776. Ford, II, 78-

88 THOMAS JEFFERSON

time so important to the American cause.” ^ His biographer
Randall observes on this occasion that “the private causes”
were the precarious situation of his wife’s health. The family-
record contains the following entry: “a son born May 28th,
1777, 10 h. P.M.” ® The true reason, however, is to be found
in the “Autobiography”, as given before.

The very day Jefferson answered Hancock, he was put on
several committees, and the next day he obtained leave to bring
in a bill “To enable tenants in taille to convey their land in fee
simple.” The Bill to Abolish Entails was reported on October
14, and after discussion and amendments passed by the House
on October 23, and approved by the Senate on November
first.

The bill was no improvisation and Jefferson intended by it
“to strike at the very root of feudalism in Virginia.” On
August 13, 1776, he had already written to an anonymous
correspondent, probably Edmrmd Pendleton:

The opinion that our lands were allodial possessions is one which
I have very long held, and had in my eye during a pretty considerable
part of my law reading which I found always strengthened it. . . .
This opinion I have thought and still think to prove if ever I should
have time to look into books again. . . . Was not the separation
of the property from the perpetual use of lands a mere fiction?
Is not it’s history well known, and the purposes for which it was
introduced, to wit, the establishment of a military system of defense ?
Was it not afterwards made an engine of immense oppression? . . .
Has it not been the practice of all other nations to hold their lands
as their personal estate in absolute dominion ? Are we not the better
for what we have hitherto abolished of the feudal system? ®

It was the first great blow at the landed hereditary aristocracy
of Virginia. The abolition of patrimonial estates, rendering
them subject to aU the obligations of personal property “sus-
ceptible to be sold, conveyed, seized, exchanged and willed”

1 Ford, H, 91, October II, 1776. * Randall, I, 196. ^Ford, II, 79

REVISION OF LAWS OF VIRGINIA 8g

as ordinary property, meant the rapid abolition of that refined
class of Virginia planters which constituted such a distinguished
feature of colonial life. It was a bold step to take, since it
meant the antagonism of a powerful class, the beginning of
hatred that pursued JeSerson during his whole life and long
after his death. Yet he had the courage to do it and was no
little proud of it.^ He was opposed by both Mr. Pendleton
and Patrick Henry, “but the bill passed finally for entire aboli-
tion.”

With the Bill to Abolish Entails Jefferson introduced another
bill on the naturalization of foreigners, containing an expressed
recognition of the right of expatriation already defended in
the “Summary View” of 1774, — another remarkable instance
of Jefferson’s persistency and relentless efforts to win his point
by legal means.

Simultaneously a committee on religion had been appointed
“to meet and adjourn from day to day, and to take into their
consideration all matters and things relating to religion and
religious morality.” Besides Jefferson, there were seventeen
members on the committee, including Fleming, Page, and
Nicholas. Being in a minority, Jefferson began the struggle
which was to end in the famous Bill for Religious Freedom, —
a long hard fight of which more will be said later. For the
time being, however, Jefferson had to be satisfied with a par-
tial success :

We prevailed so far only, as to repeal the laws which rendered
criminal the maintenance of any religious opinions, the forbearance
of repairing to church, or the exercise of any mode of worship;
and further, to exempt dissenters from contributing to the support
of the established church ; and to suspend, only until next session,
levies on the members of that church for the salaries of their own
incumbents.*

‘ Concerning the opposition he encountered, see “Autobiography.” Ford, I, S 4 '

® “Autobiography”, Ibtd , I, 58

THOMAS JEFFERSON

Yet this was a very significant victory since, from the days
of Sir Walter Raleigh, there had been an express proviso that
the laws of the colony "should not be against the true Christian
faith, now professed in the Church of England." Dissenters
as well as members of the Established Church were assessed
for the support of the Anglican ministers, and although other
denominations, particularly Presbyterians, had succeeded in
gaining more than a foothold in some parishes, a majority of
dissenters were still obliged to pay for the support of the min-
ority.

But important as they were, these constituted only minor
points. The whole structure of laws had to be remodelled to
fit new conditions ; a new legal monument had to be erected.
Jefferson’s practice of law had convinced him of the obscuri-
ties, contradictions, absurdities, and iniquities of the assemblage
of English laws on top of which had been superimposed local
regulations. The Bill for a General Revision of the Laws
passed October 26. The fifth of November five revisors were
appointed by ballot in the following order : Thomas Jefferson,
Edmund Pendleton, George Wythe, George Mason, Thomas
Ludwell Lee. As this is a more important contribution of Jeffer-
son, we may omit here the part he played on many committees
of the House, drafting and reporting on "Declaring what
shall be treason"; bills "For raising six additional battalions
of infantry”, "For establishing a Court of Appeals”, “For
establishing a High Court of Chancery”, “For establishing a
General Court and Courts of Assize”, "For establishing a Court
of Admiralty”, “For better regulating the proceedings of the
County Courts.” He plunged into the work of the complete
reorganization of the State judicial machinery, with all the
enthusiastic zeal of a bom jurist, and his capacity for precise,
minute work was once more brought into play.

The committee of revisors met at Fredericksburg to deter-
mine on a manner of procedure and to distribute the work be-

REVISION OF LAWS OF VIRGINIA 91

tween the five members. First of ail a question of methods
had to be settled ; “It had to be determined whether we should
propose to abolish the whole existing system of laws, and pre-
pare a new and complete Institute, or preserve the general sys-
tem, and only modify it to the present state of things.”

Pendleton and Lee stood for the former methods, Wythe,
Mason, and Jefierson for the latter, and this was the procedure
finally adopted. Rather than the account given by Jefferson
in his “Autobiography” we shall follow the contemporary
account drawn up at the time by George Mason.

Plan settled by the committee of Revisors in Fredericksburg,
January, 1777.

(r) The common law not to be meddled with, except where
alterations are necessary. The statutes to be revised and digested,
alterations proper for us to be made , the diction where obsolete or
redundant, to be reformed , but otherwise to undergo as few changes
as possible The acts of the English Commonwealth to be examined.
The statutes to be divided into periods ; the acts of Assembly made
on the same subject to be incorporated into them. The laws of
other colonies to be examined, and any good ones to be adopted.

In the margin is here written :

General rules in drawing provisions &c , which would do only
what the law would do without them, to be omitted. Bills to be
short; not to include matters of different natures; not to insert
an unnecessary word; nor onrit a u.seful one. Laws to be made
on the spur of the present occasion, and all innovating laws to be
limited in their duration ^

Truly an admirable plan ! Not the scheme of rash reformers,
of a priori-mmded legislators, deriving a code of laws from a
certain number of abstract principles. It was not their pur-
pose to make a tabula rasa of the old structure which had slowly
grown stone by stone, statute by statute and to rebuild en-
tirely on new plans. The old house resting on solid Anglo-

’■ “Life and Correspondence of George Mason”, I, xjti.

92 THOMAS JEFFERSON

Saxon foundations was still substantial and safe and it could
serve its purpose if only a few partitions were torn down, a few
useless annexes demolisbed, and better ventilation provided.
Nothing was farther from the mind of the committee than to
erect in Virginia a Greek or Roman temple of Themis.

The statutes were divided into five parts. Jefferson was to
take “the first period in the division of statutes to end with
25th, H. 8th”; Pendleton the second period “to end at the
Revolution” ; Wythe the third “to come to the present day” ;
G. Mason the fourth, “to consist of the residuary part of the
Virg inia laws to which is added the criminal law and land law.”
The fifth, attributed to Lee, “to be the regulation of property
in slaves, and their condition ; and also the examination of
the laws of the other colonies.” ^ Mason soon retired, “being
no lawyer”, and Lee having died, the work was redistributed
which explains the somewhat different allotment indicated by
Jefferson in the “Autobiography.” On the other hand, he
seems to have claimed for himself in the “Autobiography” an
honor and an attitude that really belonged to the committee :

I thought it would be useful, also, in new draughts to reform the
style of the later British statutes, and of our own arts of Assembly ;
which, from their verbosity, their endless tautologies, their involu-
tion of case within case, and parenthesis within parenthesis, and
their multiplied efforts at certainty, by saids and aforesaids, by ors
and by ands, to make them more plain, are really rendered more
perplexed and incomprehensible, not only to common readers, but
to the lawyers themselves.

The notes taken by G. Mason leave no doubt that this was
also the attitude of the committee and their definite policy.
It was a slow, painstaking, meticulous task, requiring common
sense, good judgment, a good sense for words and erudition.
To make laws intelligible and clear is no small achievement.
But certainly it was not the sort of work that an a priori philoso-

‘ “Life and Correspondence of George Mason ”, I, 277.

REVISION OF LAWS OF VIRGINIA 93

pher, fond of generalizations and universal principles, would
have relished, or would have been willing to submit himself to
for more than two years. If in some political matters Jeffer-
son differed from Mr. Pendleton, he admired him and later
paid him a handsome tribute in the “Autobiography.” Pen-
dleton — ■ cool, smooth and persuasive, quick, acute and re-
sourceful — was a remarkable debater.

George Mason, a man of the first order of wisdom, of expansive
mind, profound judgment, cogent in argument, learned in the lore
of our former constitution, and earnest for the republican change on
democratic principles ... his virtue was of the purest tint ; his
integrity inflexible, and his justice exact ; of warm patriotism, and,
devoted as he was to liberty, and to the natural and equal rights of
man, he might truly be called the Cato of his country without the
avarice of the Roman.*

When the preliminary work was done, the reviewers met
at Williamsburg in February, 1779, and “day by day” they
examined critically their several parts, sentence by sentence,
scrutinizing and amending, “imtil they had agreed on the
whole.” “The Revised Laws”, comprehending one hundred
and twenty-six bills, were reported to the General Assembly
Jime 18, 1779; bills were taken out occasionally from time to
time, and because of Madison’s efforts fifty-six out of the one
hundred and twenty-six' were after amendments made laws at
the sessions of 1785, 1786. Among the bills reworded or ini-
tiated by Jefferson several stood out conspicuously.

The BUI for Proportioning Crimes and Punishments is a
particularly good example of the methods used by Jefferson
in rewriting the old legislation. On sending it to George Wythe
he wrote :

I wished to exhibit a sample of reformation in the barbarous style
into which our modern statutes have degenerated from their ancient

‘ Note for Uie Mography of John Saunderson, Esq , August 31, 1820. “Auto-
biography”, Appendix A. Ford, I, 107

THOMAS JEFFERSON

simplicity. In its style, I have aimed at accuracy, brevity, simplic-
ity, preserving however the words of the established law, wherever
their meaning had been sanctioned by judicial decision, as rendered
technical by usage ^

The transfonnation undergone by the old statutes can more
easily be observed because Jefferson was careful to indicate in
footnotes his authorities from the old texts, m Latin, and even
in French and Anglo-Saxon. But the very title of the bill
indicates that Jefferson’s purpose went farther than a mere codi-
fication of the old law. He could not be entirely satisfied with
the scale of prmishments determined by the committee ; he
regretted particularly the maintamance of the Lex Talionis,
“an eye for an eye and a hand for a hand” (Section XV), and
he attempted to restrict the penalty of death to a few limited
cases, for it was “the last melancholy resource against those
whose existence is become inconsistent with the safety of their
feUow citizens.” His preamble reflects to a large extent the
views of Montesquieu and Beccaria which he copied in the
“ Commonplace Book.” But it could hardly be called hmnani-
tarian in the modem and sometimes derogatory sense of the
word. The provisions of the code itself are far from showing
any weakness or sentimentality: the death penalty is pro-
vided for treason against the Commonwealth and for whomso-
ever committeth murder by way of duel ; manslaughter, pre-
viously “punishable at law by burning in the hands, and for-
feiture of chattels”, is punished by hard labor for seven years
in the public works, and the murderer “ shall forfeit one half of
his lands and goods to the next of kin of the person slain, the
other half to be sequestered during such times, in the hands, and
to the use, of the commonwealth.” Rape, polygamy, or sodomy
“shall be punished if a man by castration, if a woman by bor-
ing through the cartilage of her nose a hole of one half inch in
diameter at least.” Witchcraft, conjuration, or sorcery “shall

1 Monticello, November i, 1778. Memorial Edition, I, 216,

REVISION OF LAWS OF VIRGINIA 95

be punished by ducking and whipping, at the discretion of a
jury, not exceeding fifteen stripes”, and, most extraordinary
for modern readers, “Whenever sentences of death shall be
pronounced against any person for treason or murder, execu-
tion thereof shall be done on the next day but one, after such
sentence, unless it be Sunday, and then on Monday following”
(Section XIII) . Truly enough the law of nature is once men-
tioned in a footnote to the effect that if a prisoner tries to escape
from prison he shall not be considered as a capital offender.
“The law of nature impels every one to escape from confine-
ment; he should not therefore be subjected to punishment.
Let the legislature restrain his criminal by walls, not by parch-
ment.” If there is “philosophy” in this statement it is com-
mon sense and certainly not sentimentality.

The Bill for the more General Diffusion of Knowledge is far
more philosophical in its terms. There for the first time will
be found a picture of democracy as Jefferson pictured it to him-
self at that date. The general statement at the beginning may
be an echo from Montesquieu ; but while the French philoso-
pher had not indicated any remedy for such a situation, Jeffer-
son was interested in it only in so far as it could be amended.

Experience has shewn, that even under the best forms, those
entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, per-
verted it into tyranny; and it is believed that the most effectual
means of preventing this would be, to illuminate, as far as practica-
ble, the minds of the people at large, and more especially to give
them knowledge of those facts, which history exhibiteth, . . . and
whereas it is generally true that people will be happiest whose laws
are best, and are best administered, and that laws will be wisely
formed, and honestly administered, in proportion as those who
form and administer them are wise and honest ; whence it becomes
expedient for promoting the publick happiness that those persons,
whom nature hath endowed with genius and virtue, should be
rendered by liberal education worthy to receive, and able to guard

96 THOMASJEFFERSON

the sacred deposit of the rights and liberties of their fellow citizens,
and that they should be called to that charge without regard to
wealth, birth or other accidental condition or circumstance ; but
the indigence of the greater number disabling them from so educat-
ing, at their own expence, those of their children whom nature hath
fitly formed and disposed to become useful instruments for the
public, it is better that such should be sought for and educated
at the common expence of all, than that the happiness of all should
be confined to the weak or wicked.

Is this a democratic view in the modern sense of the word?
At any rate it is not the democratic phraseology of a modern
politician. There is no protest at all in the name of immanent
justice against the unequality of conditions, there is no desire
to give every boy a fair chance in life, no indication that men
being born equal, all children should have equal opportunities.
We are perfectly free to believe that Jefferson entertained such
sentiments at that date. Historically, however, there is no
evidence that he did so. All we have here is a hard-headed
proposition with the corrective that, under the new system, a
child of genius or great talent was to be given an opportunity
to develop his native qualities, for it was both the duty and the
interest of society to prevent such a waste of intellectual
potentialities. Furthermore, Jefferson was manifestly of the
opinion that no man could properly participate in the govern-
ment of society unless he had been rendered worthy to receive
and able to guard the sacred deposit of the rights and liberties
of his fellow citizens. Neither wealth, birth, nor accidental
circumstances should determine who is fit for public office, but
education should be the criterion. As he was doing his
utmost to abolish the last privileges and prestige of the landed
hereditary aristocracy of Virginia, Jefferson was striving to
constitute and to get recognition for another aristocracy, an
aristocracy of learning and intelligence, a true ruling class, or
more exactly a governing and legislative class; for he was

REVISION OF LAWS OF VIRGINIA 97

persuaded that the business of the legislator cannot be learned
in a day, that it requires, besides native qualities of mind, a
certain expert knowledge of the subject.

The provisions of the bill are most extraordinary for the
time. Jefferson provided for the division of the State mto a
certain number of districts or hundreds; in each hundred a
schoolhouse was to be built and so located that all the children
within it might daily attend the school.

In each of the schools shall be taught reading, writing, and com-
mon arithmetick, and the books which shall be used therein for
instructing the children to read shall be such as will at the same
time make them acquainted with Graecian, Roman, English and
American history. At these schools all the free children, male and
female, resident within the respective hundred, shall be entitled to
receive tuition gratis for the term of three years.

In addition, the bill provided that a certain number of gram-
mar schools would be erected, “their situation to be as cen-
tral as possible for the inhabitants of the said counties, the
schools to be furnished with good water, convenient to plenti-
ful supplies of provision and fuel and above all things that it be
healthy.” In aU of these grammar schools, which shall receive
boarders

shall be taught the Latin and Greek languages, English Grammar,
geography, and the higher part of numerical arithmetick, to wit.,
vulgar and decimal fractions, and the extrication of the square and
cube roots. In order to provide proper facilities for children of
particular ability, the overseer of the hundred schools (one for ten
schools) shall appoint from among the boys who shall have been
two years at the least at some one of the schools under his superin-
tendance and whose parents are too poor to give them farther
education some one of the best and most promising genius and
dispositions to proceed to the grammar schools.

At the end of the first year one third of the boys shall be dis-
continued as public foundations after examination; “all shall

98 THOMASJEFFERSON

be discontinued at the end of two years save one only, the best
in genius and disposition, who shall be at liberty to continue
there four years longer on the public foundation, and shall
thence forward be deemed a senior.” Finally, “the visitors
will select one among the said seniors of the best learning and
most hopeful genius and disposition who shall be authorized
by them to proceed to William and Mary College ; there to be
educated, boarded, and clothed three years ; the expense of
which shall be paid by the Treasurer.”

This rigorous selective process looks very familiar to any one
acquainted with the modern French system of free elementary
schools, boarding colleges and lycees, and the system of com-
petitive scholarships and fellowships of the French. But it
was not fully developed in France before the Third Republic
and it was not even dreamed of before the Revolution. Many
times the French have been criticized for the undemocratic
features of an educational system which reserves secondary
education to those who are able to pay and to the small num-
ber of children who win scholarships. There is no possibility
that this scheme was ever borrowed by Jefferson from any
French theorician, and there is, on the contrary, some reason
to believe that in France it owes its beginning to the publica-
tion of Jefferson’s plan in the “Notes on Virginia” printed in
Paris and in French m 1787.

The educational structure of the State would not have been
complete if Jefferson had not provided for a reorganization of
Whliam and Mary College. Such is the purpose of the next
bill (Bill LXXX) in the Report of the Committee of Revisors.
There he was more ruthless and more radical. After a first
section which recounts the foundation of the college and its
history, Jefferson concluded that “the said college, thus amply
endowed by the public has not answered their expectation,
and there is reason to hope, that it would become more useful,
if certain articles in its constitution were altered and amended.”

REVISION OF LAWS OF VIRGINIA 99

By one stroke of the pen, Jefferson abolished the school of
theology, took the administration out of the hands of the for-
mer trustees to place it in the hands of visitors appointed by
the Legislature and “not to be restrained in their legislation
by the royal prerogatives, or the laws of the kingdom of Eng-
land, or the canons of the constitution of the English Church,
as enjoined in the Charter.” The president and faculty were
to be dismissed, and six professorships created , to wit, one of
moral law and police ; one of history, civil and ecclesiastical ;
one of anatomy and medicine ; one of natural philosophy and
natural history; one of the ancient languages Oriental and
northern ; and one of modern languages. —

A missionary will be appointed to the several tribes of the Indians,
whose business will be to investigate their laws, customs, religion,
traditions, and more particularly their languages, constructing
grammar thereof, as well as may be, and copious vocabularies,
and on oath to communicate, from time to time, to the said Presi-
dent and Professors the material he collects.

Thus the college was to become the training school in which
“those who are to be the future guardians of the rights and
liberties of their country may be endowed with science and
virtue, to watch and preserve the sacred deposit.” It was not
a democratic institution, but the finishing school of the future
legislators and experts in the science of government.

As to disinterested “researches of the learned and curious”,
they were to be encouraged by the establishment at Richmond
of a Free Public Library with yearly appropriation of two
thousand pounds for the purchase of books and maps.

One may state here without any fear of contradiction that
no system so complete, so logically constructed and so well
articulated had ever been proposed in any country in the world.
It already embodied the ideas for which Jefferson stood during
all his life, it preceded by more than fifteen years the plans of

lOO

THOMAS JEFFERSON

the French Convention. As the first charter of American
public education it is an astonishing document and deserves
more attention than it has hitherto received.

The Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom in Jefferson’s
opinion ranked in importance with the Declaration of Inde-
pendence. It was not intended to be a revolutionary docu-
ment, but simply a common-sense adjustment of the situation
brought about by the repeal of several provisions of the old
Virginia laws. Jefferson took care to explain the true purpose
of the bill in the “Notes on Virginia” (Query XVII). The
Virginia Bill of Rights had proclaimed “it to be a truth, and a
natural right that the exercise of religion should be free.” On
the other hand, no mention of it had been made in the Con-
vention and no measure had been adopted to protect religious
freedom. The Assembly, however, had repealed, in 1776, “all
acts of Parliament which had rendered criminal the main-
taining any opinion in matters of religion”, and suspended
the laws giving salaries to the clergy. This suspension was
made perpetual in October, 1779. But religious matters still
remained subject to common law and to acts passed by the
Assembly. At Common Law, heresy was a capital offence,
punishable by burning, according to the writ de haerelico com-
burando. Furthermore, by an act of the Assembly of 1705,
“if a person brought up in the Christian religion denies the
being of a God, or the Trinity, or asserts there are more gods
than one, or denies the Christian religion to be true, or the
Scriptures to be of divine authority, he is punishable on the
first offence by incapacity to hold any office or employment
ecclesiastical, civil, or military ; on the second by disability
to sue, to lake any gift or legacy, to be guardian, executor, or
administrator, and by three years’ imprisonment without
bail.” 1

This being the situation, the article of the Bill of Rights con-

* “Notes on Virginia”, Query XVII.

REVISION OF LAWS OF VIRGINIA loi

cerning religious freedom remained a dead letter until provisions
could be made to take religious matters out of the jurisdiction
of the Common Law.

Historians seem to have been somewhat misled both by the
lofty and philosophical tone of the Bill for Religious Free-
dom and the comments made by Jefferson in the “Notes on
Virginia”, specially written by him, as we always must re-
member, for a group of French philosophers and the French
public. A philosopher he was, but before all he was a purist
and a historian of law. For him the main question was first
to determine whether the jurisdiction of the Common Law in
matters of religion was founded in law. He had already
studied minutely the history of Common Law and made copi-
ous extracts in his “Commonplace Book” ; he had noticed in
Houard’s “Coutumes Anglo-Normandes” that some pious
copyist had prefixed to the laws of Alfred four chapters of
Jewish law. “This awkward Monkish fabrication makes
the preface to Alfred’s genuine laws stand in the body of the
Work ; and the very words of Alfred himself form the frauds,
for he declares in that preface that he has collected these laws
from those of Ina, of Offa, Ethelbert, and his ancestors, saying
nothing of any of them being taken from the scripture.” Con-
sequently the pretended laws of Alfred were a forgery.

Yet, palpable as it must be to a lawyer, our judges have piously
avoided lifting the veil under which it was shrouded. In truth, the
alliance between Church and State in England, has ever made their
judges accomplices in the frauds of the clergy ; and even bolder
than they are : for, instead of being contented with these four sur-
reptitious chapters of Exodus, they have taken the whole leap, and
declared at once, that the whole Bible and Testament, in a lump,
make part, of the Common law. . . . Finally in answer to Fortes-
cue Aland’s question why the Ten Commandments should not now
be a part of the Common law of England ? We may say that they
are not, because they never were made so by legislative author-

102 THOMAS JEFFERSON

ity ; the document which imposed that doubt on him being a mani-
fest forgery.” '

Bolstered up with his texts, references, and authorities, Jeffer-
son could now, if need be, confute the redoubtable Mr. Pendle-
ton in the Committee of Revisors, but such a legal technical
presentation of the facts would evidently not appeal either to
the Assembly at large or to the public. These had to be ap-
proached in an entirely different way ; for to speak of frauds,
forgeries, and monkish fabrication would not do at all in a
public document and, on the contrary, might create a revulsion
of feeling. It became necessary to present the reform in an
entirely different light and Jefferson did so in the first section
of the bill.

The phrasing of these lofty principles is well known; still
it may not be out of place to reproduce them once more :

Well aware that the opinions of belief of men depend not on
their own will, but follow involuntarily the evidence proposed to
their minds ; that Almighty God hath created the mind free, and
manifested his supreme will that free it shall remain by making it
altogether susceptible of restraint ; that aU attempts to influence it
by temporal punishments, or burthens, or by civil incapacitations,
tend only to beget habits of h)T)ocrisy and meanness ... to com-
pel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of
opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical ;
. . . that our civil rights have no dependance on our religious opin-
ions, any more than our opinions in physics or geometry ; . . . that
the opinions of men are not the object of civil government.

In Section II, after that preamble, the religious independence
of the individual was proclaimed :

We the General Assembly of Virginia do enact that no man shall
be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place,
or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested,
or burthened in his body or goods, or shall otherwise suffer, on
1 “Commonplace Book”,p. 362.

fn-nn-diJ- ^ (jjircjJ •

i£l€nu U i‘t^ '^/u^ fci- tNM 'P-C lUivXi]

aUf.| tiuJ- tLn^ I^lu .1 H r'c a. lwA. U. i/yVJt i- t < /yp^-rAuL V tra,pMc.rA^

/TV4*J JMapW. iiyM,‘ ,JrC;p.yy^l-^ PiAU^^y,^

iv*^ ftuATu^f'kiA* tiUaH, 1 C 4 . t.^rm/^u.'VcTL^*, t/7^ A <,7 flU/fui

eLuJl S ^ Ka.> P ^ lOA ^

Ay\J~ ^

(■^ u/ruic-yatA-vurf /u^ TryxjfVhivT^ ur\.f4y-JiA~ U» /Aa4- LnJt^-tA-a^ e.irujt.ei t^Jt
4 0^ Ux^zAkc/VA^^. £L4 t »«9 A.

LoajJ ^ ^t#u f^xpiA- h(xA,4-K.

fx>^tity\itA. Lmatj ^ furni.4.uUt c.rr\^M,ln.7%.af4. f^^ft -vzAixtuUi £ ayj^frtU*-^ yrypLTri-<»p^>^

UjUjXr^ i-ac-^Yn*^ ^ L/^u-t*^ A-iL 6 »< (u^-n clIaA . y

^ rt-rft £OiSn ./^n OlA^T^A- f a/»vQ ^ c.^n*^t-tA.

I* fey^ >»^ *'1 vi t<. i« 4- tA£An^-£^ etirr ^iuA^m /vO-*#-*- ^■n.A\tAv^ Pm^vA-aa^

*Y ^ Lff\A-cAi tA-lAAJ jix/ntiuijUL LA* iru/i^ ItltuM***. C^£/futA*^ C^fuj/r-t^ ^

M «l<. I ’■• ^ •»^-»'>v^ tuu Iaaat- yrkpOiiA flbt/irrr^v^^u^ im frVJuAt cj Hui^ cJArry-f ,

ly\d. c *'^T' (*^<iAr i-rxAltMA ^ Laux*^ e,tr*J e/r\^<A. tryfA /A^UcjAn/y*’ •/uo->yt

/«. / (vyi. ^ ^ ^xiKiAtV, ii*ju-^ i*ut4A-e. (-aMjca f^X- £t-o^ g*-vufL rf/ t L> *-^J d^ 0 Tn_t*^

/A*- (n^i dmxL t/T* «v tL^mp^ yrtWvX x paAi ^ }^a. CermAn^ ttuA) ArtA^Pt

^ w/ J u.idUtx.rt^ i^MXArtvK cm. ^ i $A.eA* u^1 Ay ^-A^Tuc S friaZt^AtAf HtJ!ji ^LArS> Hma*
fkxAf iA^.<ixr^WT-*Ax.^£/,xi^ f4iA~ ArLajlM~ cJbrrxA.^ o,-n5 /Jui^/T^ -

tl^ ^ I’izA ^^p*4jt, L^A-l^dAA Ay /Alirt- a<i>Axy' aj Jl-tL^AJip>*i irnJk, lArp^rxFm
C f'TvrfCJLfcn/KAjL, tvwrf. fAxy (VV-r»> /"Ax. (fft^^trti^ /A< tM'rtAiJTW ^ TTUt'rwct^'^x^ ,

t^\ /fitw Mjy n-^ /Ax £.£uuA. jv' ^ ^ aj

£ ( A£ui /Aj»> /Ax ./A*/t A-t /lO- ^ Hu 4^ tar^fifsuLAp/t

L-Axvt / Ai °'^ cxrn>h'^‘A‘-(A /Ax<n, Mxy ^Ax

Art O^TWi>C^ /o ^*T-ix4Uijt /At l^** £.^ynAn»JA*A^^yT*^rrJ^

jh-a-uJU T*Jt rzpnp Ax. {>-pA-*A ^/A*. ^ iX-rruty *Ay /fi-fci /AiJj

£U-t r ^/" ^a.'_‘^ ffixy KUA«v L^e>y<. mA^^C7^ /Ax^CMmAnA /A-*V“otffM.^

cm /w^ ^ 'fr\AmA^AA^ j^^ry^A/Y^

ffpfl /tT P' — ‘rr- TTrfi/ ^ ■* *— i/>Xai I. sJ! d*p^tfP*jf *if

rtV ThiA ill A < f/l 4bji4fl**>^

iAmA tfci.* StJuJ u JxuxL't* Aawx t**»' ^ A*c*/im.fiw.'^<^ J

A PAGE EROM JEEEERSON’S “COMMONPLACE BOOK”
Z^rom the manuscript in the possession of the Library of Congress

REVISION OF LAWS OF VIRGINIA 103

account of his religious opinions or beliefs ; but that all men shall
be free to profess and by argument to maintain, their opinions in
matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish,
enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.

Furthermore, in the first section, Jefferson gave the first
and final expression of his understanding of freedom of thought :

That it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government
for its of&ces to interfere when principles break out into overt acts
against peace and good order ; and finally, that truth is great and
will prevail if left to herself; that she is the proper and sufficient
antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict unless
by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free
argument and debate ; errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is
permitted freely to contradict them.

It is not surprising that the bill was savagely attacked in
the Assembly and did not pass until 1786. It simply shows
that the Church of England had more supporters than Jeffer-
son led us to believe, when he wrote in the “Notes on Vir-
ginia” that “two-thirds of the people had become dissenters
at the commencement of the present revolution.” The re-
maining third, if such was the proportion, were at least weU
organized and offered a strong resistance. This biU marked
the beginning of the accusations of impiety and infidelity so
often launched at Jefferson. Whatever his private sentiments
on the matter may have been, he was not the man to discrimi-
nate against any one because of religious beliefs ; and at the
very time when he was engaged in preparing his biU, he took
the initiative of starting a subscription towards the support of
the Reverend Mr. Charles Clay of Williamsburg. The docu-
ment, never before published, is entirely written in his hand
and is of such importance that I may be permitted to reproduce
it here :

Whereas, by an act of General assembly, freedom of Religious
opinion and worship is restored to all, and it is left to the members

104

THOMAS JEFFERSON

of each religious society to employ such Teachers they think fit for
their own Spiritual comfort and instruction and to maintain the
same by their free and voluntary contributions. We the subscri-
bers (professing the most Catholic affection for other religious
sectaries who happen to differ from us in points of conscience,) yet
desirous of encouraging and supporting (a church in our opinion so
truly Apostolick as) the Protestant Episcopalian Church, and of
deriving to ourselves, through the ministry of it’s teachers, the
benefits of Gospel-knowledge and Religious improvement, and at the
same time of supporting those, who, having been at considerable
expence in qualifying themselves by regular education for explaining
the holy scriptures, have dedicated their time and labor to the
service of the said church (and moreover approving highly the
conduct of the rev* Charles Clay, who early rejecting the tyrant and
tyranny of Britain, proved his religion genuine by its harmony with
the liberties of mankind and conforming his public prayers to the
spirit and the injured rights of his country, addressed the god of
battles for victory to our arms, while others impiously prayed that
our enemies might vainquish and overcome us) do hereby oblige
ourselves our heirs executors and administrators on or before the
2Sth day of December in this present year 1777, and likewise on or
before the 25th day of December in every year following until we
shall withdraw our subscription in open vestry, or until the legisla-
ture shall make other provision for the support of the said clergy, to
pay to the (reverend) said Charles Clay of Albemarle his executor
or administrators the several sums aflBxed to our respective names :
in Consideration whereof we expect that the said Charles Clay shall
perform divine service and preach a sermon in the town of Char-
lottesville on every fourth Sunday, or oftener, if a regular rotation
with the other churches that shall have put themselves imder his care
will admit a more frequent attendence.

And we further mutually agree with each other that we will meet
at Charlottesville on the i‘* day of March in the present year, and

and on the second Thursday in in every year following so long

as we continue our subscriptions and there make choice by ballot
of three wardens to collect our said subscriptions, to take care of such
books and vestments as shall be provided for the use of our church.

REVISION OF LAWS OF VIRGINIA 105

to call meetings of our Congregation when necessary, and to transact
such other business relating to our Congregation as we shall here-
after confide to them.

Th. Jefferson, six pounds; Jno Harvie, four pounds; Randolph
Jefferson, two pounds ten schillings; Thos. Garth, fifteen schillings ;
Philip Mazzei, sixteen schillings eight pence.^

Far more important than the local reception of the revised
laws, since most of them were adopted only years later, and
thanks to the efforts of Madison, during the sessions of 1785
and 1786, is the fact that Jefferson had already formulated
at that time for himself and his fellow citizens the most essen-
tial principles of his doctrine. He was not unaware of this, and
stated it himself in his "Autobiography” when he declared:
“I considered four of these bills, passed or reported as forming
a system by which every fibre would be eradicated of ancient
or future aristocracy ; and a foundation laid for a government
truly republican.” ^

The ideal government he had in mind at the time could per-
haps be described as a democracy, but he did not use the word
himself, not even many years later in his "Autobiography”
where he simply spoke of “a government truly republican.”
He was much opposed to the perpetuation of an hereditary
landed gentry, but I do not see that he would have approved
or even conceived the possibility of a government placed en-
tirely under the control of unenhghtened men. The Bill for
the more General Diffusion of Knowledge makes clear that
only through a liberal education can men be “rendered worthy
to receive and able to guard the sacred deposit of the rights and
liberties of their fellow citizens”, and the Bill for Amending

' This seems to be the first draft of the document ; another copy in the Jefferson
Coolidge Collection presents few variants, the most important being found in the second
sentence which reads, “Yet desirous of encouraging and supporting the Calvinistical
Reformed Church, and of deriving” etc. The list of names appended to that second
version is considerably longer and besides the original signers includes fourteen other
supporters of the Reverend Charles Clay.

“Autobiography.” Memorial Edition, I, 73.

io6 THOMASJEFFERSON

the Charter of William and Mary proclaims even more em-
phatically that the old college must “become the seminary, in
which those who are to be the future guardians of the rights of
liberty of their country may be endowed with science and virtue,
to watch and preserve the sacred deposit.” Jefferson was a
friend of the people, hut no admirer and no flatterer of the
“plain people”, nor did he entertain any illusion about their
participation in all the forms of government. For the present
it was enough, as he wrote in the “Autobiography”, if they
were qualified through elementary education “to exercise with
intelligence their parts in self-Government.” If he rebelled
against aristocracy of wealth, he would have reacted with equal
vehemence against moh tyranny. Neither was he radical
enough to admit propagandises par le fait and to forbid society
the right to intervene “when principles break out into overt
acts against peace and good order.” (Bill for Religious Free-
dom.) For freedom of speech does not entail freedom of ac-
tion: and the civil rights or rights of compacts are neces-
sarily subject to civil regulations.

It is easily seen now that Jefferson so far remained perfectly
consistent, and followed in practice the distinction between
natural rights and rights of compact mentioned in the pre-
ceding chapter, and which already constituted one of the main
tenets of his political philosophy. If this theory is accepted,
it is evident that society being founded upon a legal compact,
the ideal form of government is one in which both parties, the
individual on the one hand and society on the other, scrupu-
lously live up to its terms. A breach of contract can no more
be condoned in the individual than in society. On the other
hand, natural rights remain always truly “inalienable” and
apart from civil rights. When any individual comes to the
conclusion that the sacrifice he has made of certain rights in
order to enjoy more security is not compensated for by suffi-
cient advantages, he has the right to denounce the compact :

REVISION OF LAWS OF VIRGINIA 107

hence the right of expatriation always so energetically main-
tained by Jefferson. This is the very reason why Jefferson
could not and did not blame John Randolph for going to Eng-
land in August, 1775, since “the situation of the country had
rendered it not eligible to him to remain longer in it.” Thus
the conflict seen by so many political philosophers between man
and society disappears entirely. The individual cannot stand
against society when he is free to break the social bond at any
time — nor can society oppress the individual without en-
dangering its very existence. Such a theory was more than a
“philosophical construction.” It was largely based upon facts
and observation ; it expressed the current political philosophy
of the colonies. It was eminently the jmidistic explanation
of the pioneer spirit.

Granting what is imdoubtedly true, that Jefferson aroused
antagonism and enmities in the Assembly, he certainly had
also his admirers and followers. If the prophet had preached
in the desert, he would not have gained the prompt recogni-
tion that came to him when he was chosen Governor of Vir-
ginia, the first of June, 1779, to succeed Patrick Henry. He
was then thirty-six years old.

CHAPTER III

GOVERNOR OF VIRGINIA — THE “NOTES
ON VIRGINIA”

Jeeeerson served two years as Governor of the Common-
wealth and when he wrote his “Autobiography” he gave only a
short paragraph to this episode of his eventful career, referring
for more details to Girardin's continuation of Burk’s “History
of Virginia,” The student of law, the erudite jurist, and class-
ical scholar was by the choice of the Assembly entrusted with
the duties and responsibilities of a war chief, and it cannot be
said that Jefferson enjoyed the experience. The duties of
governor were not only exacting but almost impossible to fulfill
satisfactorily. For more than two years, Virginia, without
money, with a poorly equipped militia reenforced with an
inadequate number of Federal troops, had been overrun by the
enemy and had known all the atrocities of the war. The
governor had to honor the continuous requests of the general
in chief for more ammunition, more equipment and provision,
and at the same time had to keep under arms, and as much as
possible in fiighting condition, militiamen anxious to go back to
their farms for the harvest or the plowing, so as to protect
the territory of the State against the raids of the invader and
prevent Indian uprisings on the western border. Last, but not
least, he had to take into consideration the general attitude of
the people of the State and the measures adopted by the legis-
lature. Jefferson’s correspondence with Lafayette during the
first months of 1 781 is most iUummating in this respect. When,
after Arnold’s treason, Lafayette was sent by Washington
to apprehend the traitor and give some assistance to the Old

GOVERNOR OF VIRGINIA

109

Dommioiij he found that there were neither boats, wagons,
nor horses to carry his equipment from Head of Elk to the
siege of operations. The treasury was empty, the Assembly
most chary in granting impressment warrants, and practically
all the governor could offer in the way of help was his unlhnited
good will. Lafayette had to use oxen for his artillery and to
mount cannon on barges ; but even after powers of impressment
were granted to the Marquis, Jefferson had to remind him of
the necessity of not impressing stallions or brood mares, so as
not to kill the “ goose with the golden eggs.” ^

Jefferson’s attitude in these critical circumstances reveal his
true character to a degree, and without entering into a detailed
account of the campaign, a few illustrations may be included
here. It may be remembered that four thousand British troops,
taken prisoners at the battle of ^Saratoga, had been ordered
by Congress to Charlottesville. The problem of housing and
feeding them soon became acute, and Jefferson was called upon
to assist in finding a proper solution. The life imposed upon
the captive soldiers was comparatively mdld. Barracks were
erected, while the officers, well provided with money, rented
houses in the vicinity of the camp and bought some of the finest
horses in Virginia. For most of them the Charlottesville
captivity was a very pleasant viUegiature. On the other hand,
some of the inhabitants did not view without alarm this sudden
increase in the population of the county, and application was
made to Governor Patrick Henry to have at least part of the
prisoners removed to another section of the State. This, ac-
cordmg to Jefferson, would have been a breach of faith, since
the articles of capitulation provided that the officers should
not be separated from their men. On this occasion he wrote a
very vehement letter to the governor, March 27, 1779, pro-
testing that such a measure “would suppose a possibility that

1 See my edition of the Jefferson-Lafayette Correspondence, Paris and Baltimore,
1929.

THOMAS JEFFERSON

humanity was kicked out of doors in America, and interest only
attended to.” Yet the governor could not entirely neglect
interested consideration, and Jefferson once more revealed that
curious mixture of high principles and hard, practical common
sense, to which we already called attention. He was aware that
the circulation of money was increased by the presence of these
troops “at the rate of $30,000 a week at least.” The rich
planters, “being more generally sellers than buyers”, were
greatly benefited by these unexpected customers, although the
poor people were much displeased by inroads made by them
upon the amoimt of supplies and provisions available in the
county.

Never were prisoners better treated or made more welcome,
and if Jefferson reflected the feelings of his neighbors there
was no animosity against the soldiers in the field :

The great cause which divides our countries is not to be decided
by individual animosities. The harmony of private societies can-
not weaken national efforts. To contribute by neighbourly inter-
course and attention to make others happy is the shortest and
surest way of being happy ourselves. As these sentiments seem to
have directed your conduct, we should be as unwise as illiberal,
were we not to preserve the same temper of mind.^

Truly this was a war of philosophers and gentlemen, and the
courtly generals of Louis XV would not have expressed more
elegantly their consideration for the enemy. Jefferson’s decla-
ration was no mere gesture, for he struck up lasting friendships
with several of the prisoners. He was particularly interested
in a young German officer, Louis de Unger, who showed a
remarkable talent for philosophy, in Baron de Geismer with
whom he kept up a correspondence for more than ten years
and in Major General Baron de Riedesel who, with his wife,
was a frequent guest at Monticello. To many of them

1 Jeffersoa to General Philips. Quoted by Randall, I, 235.

* See his letter dated from Peris, November 20, 1789.

GOVERNOR OF VIRGINIA

111

Jefferson opened his house, his library, and his dining room.
He discussed philosophy and agriculture with them, played
duets on his violm, and sincerely regretted the loss of that
pleasant society when he had to leave after his appointment
as governor.^

Yet a sterner trait in his character was soon to be revealed.
While the British prisoners were described as “having thus
found the art of rendering captivity itself comfortable, and
carried to execution, at their own great expense and labor,
their spirits sustained by the prospect of gratifications rising
before their eyes”, the American prisoners and noncombatants
were receiving harsher treatment at the hands of the British.
War had become particularly atrocious after Indian tribes had
been encouraged to attack the insurgents, and this was an
offense that Jefferson could not condone. When Governor
Hamilton of Kaskaskia, with his two lieutenants, Dejean
and Lamothe, who had distinguished themselves by their
harsh policy, surrendered to Clark and were brought to Virginia,
Jefferson ordered them confined in the dungeon of the public
jail, put in irons and kept mcommunicado. On General Philips’
protest Jefferson wrote to Washington to ask him for advice,
but added that in his opinion these prisoners were common
criminals and that he could “find nothing in Books usually
recurred to as testimonials of the Laws and usages of nature
and nations which convicts the opinion I have above expressed
of error.” ^ To Guy Carleton, Governor of Canada, he
answered that “we think ourselves justified in Governor
Hamilton’s strick confinement on the general principle of
National retaliation”, and no pimishment was too severe for
a man who had employed “Indian savages whose known rule
of warfare is an indiscriminate butchery of men, women and
children.” ®

* To Baron de Riedesel, July 4, i 779 - Ford, H, 245.

® July 17, 1779. Ibid.-, It, 247. « July 22, 1779. Ibid., II, 249.

II2

THOMAS JEFFERSON

When a few weeks later, upon Washington’s request, the irons
were taken from the prisoners and a parole offered to them,
Jefferson obeyed very reluctantly and informed the general
that “they objected to that part of it which restrained them
from saying anything to the prejudice of the United States” and
insisted on “freedom of speech”; they were in consequence
remanded to their confinement in the jail, “which must be con-
sidered as a voluntary one until they can determine with them-
selves to be inoffensive in words as well as deeds.” ^

Even when the prisoners were freed, Jefferson wrote again
to Washington :

I shall give immediate orders for having in readiness every engine
which the Enemy have contrived for the destruction of our unhappy
citizens captivated by them. The presentiment of these operations
is shocking beyond expression. I pray heaven to avert them : but
nothing in this world will do it but a proper conduct in the Enemy.
In every event I shall resign myself to the hard necessity under
which I shall act.“

Writing the same day to Colonel George Mathews, Jefferson
defined with more precision what he understood by these
“operations” when he declared that “iron will be retaliated by
iron, prison ships by prison ships, and like for like m general.” ®

The faults of his own people did not find him any weaker, for
he declared: “I would use any powers I have for the pimish-
ment of any officer of our own who should be guilty of excesses
in justifiable under the usages of civilized nations. ” He was not
slow either m punishing mutineers, in having the ringleaders
seized in their beds “singly andwitliout noise” and in recom-
mending cavalry, “as men on horseback have been found the
most certain Instrument of public punishment.” ^

‘October I, 1779. Ford, 11 , 258- ® October 8, 1779. Ibid,, 11 , 261.

11, 263

■* To The Virginia Delegation in Congress, October 27, 1780. To Colonel Vanmeter,
April 27, 1781. Ibid., Ill, 24.

GOVERNOR OF VIRGINIA 113

This tpait of Jefferson’s character, hardly ever noticed, was
no passing mood. It was little apparent in ordinary circum-
stances, but it was to reappear with the same stem inflexibility
during the prosecution of Aaron Burr twenty-five years later.
The dreamer, the theorist, the “philosopher” does not appear
in the letters written by Jefferson during his governorship. He
was punctual, attentive to details and careful to abide by the
measures taken by the legislature. Yet he was subjected to
bitter criticism and a sort of legend grew up about his lack of
efficiency. He was approaching the end of his second term,
which expired on June 2, 1781, and the legislature, feelmg that
the present danger required desperate action, was thinking of
appointing a temporary dictator. Although most decidedly
opposed to the creation of such an of&ce, Jefferson believed that
the appointment of a military leader was highly desirable
(Letter to Washington, May 28), and according to his wishes
General Nelson in command of the State troops was elected in
his place. But before the Assembly could come to a decision
an unexpected incident happened. It has been related at
great length, and I am afraid with some embellishments, by
Randall, who reconstmeted it from Jefferson’s papers and from
the family traditions. Virginia was literally overrun by the
enemy, and the raids of the British cavalry were a common
occurrence. During one of these raids Tarleton attempted to
capture the legislature and almost succeeded in taking the
governor. The account of the incident, as I found it written by
Jefferson, is far less picturesque, but probably more reliable
than the highly colored narration of the biographer ;

This was the state of things when, his office having expired on the
2 ^ June, & his successor not yet in place. Col. Tarlton, with his regi-
ment of horse, was detached by L. Cornwallis, to surprise him (sup-
posed to be still governor) & the legislature now sitting in Charlottes-
ville, the Speakers of the two houses, & some other members of the
legislature, were lodging with him at Monticello. Tarleton, early

II4 THOMAS JEFFERSON

in the morning of June 4. when within 10 miles of that place,
detached a company of horse to secure him & his guests, & proceeded
himself rapidly with his main body to Charlottesville, where he
hoped to find the legislature unapprised of his movement, notice
of it however had been brought both to Monticello & Charlottesville
about sunrise, by a Mr Jouett from Louisa, who seeing them pass
his father’s house in the evening of the 3.'* and riding through the
night along by-ways, brought the notice. The Speakers, with their
Colleagues returned to Charlottesville, & with the other members of
the legislature, had barely time to get out of the way.'

A few days later Jefferson left Amherst and returned to
Monticello which he found practically undamaged ; it was then
that, riding to Poplar Forest, he was thrown from his horse
and so seriously hurt that he could not ride horseback for several
months. Shortly afterwards he learned that some members of
the legislature, probably irked by the humiliation of having
fled before the British raiders, not once, but several times, were
not unwilling to accuse the governor of having neglected to take
proper measures of defense. As I have foimd nowhere any
indication to contradict Jefferson’s accoimt of the incident, it
had better be given here in his simple words :

I returned to Monticello July 26. & learning some time after that
Mr George Nicholas, than a young man, just entered into the legis-
lature proposed to institute some enquiry into my conduct before the
legislature, a member from my county vacated his seat, & the county
elected me, in his room, that I might vindicate myself on the floor
of the house, thro’ the intervention of a friend, I obtained from
Mr. Nicholas a written note of the charges he proposed to bring
forward & I furnished him in return the heads of the answers I
should make, on the day appointed for hearing his charges he with-
drew from the house ; & no other imdertaking to bring them forward,
I did it myself in my place, from his paper, answering them verba-
tim to the house, the members had been witnesses themselves to

> “A Diary kept by Th: J from Dec. 31. 1780 to Jan. 11. 1781 and more general
Notes of subsequent transactions during the British invasion.” Jefferson Papers.
Library of Congress.

GOVERNOR OF VIRGINIA iig

all the material facts, and passed an unanimous vote of approbation,
which may be seen on their Journals. Mr. Nicholas was an honest
and honorable man, & took a conspicuous occasion, many years
after, of his own free will, & when the matter was entirely at rest, to
retract publicly the erroneous opinions he had been led into on that
occasion, and to make just reparation by a candid acknowledgment
of them.^

This unfortunate incident revealed another fundamental
trait of Jefferson’s character, — his total incapacity to accept
public criticism with equanimity. It was not until December
19, 1781, that he had the opportunity of presenting his case
before the legislature and of receiving the vote of thanks in-
tended ‘ to obviate and remove all unmerited censure.” In
the meantime, and because he did not wish to leave a free field
to his enemies, he had to decline a new appointment from
Congress, when on the fifteenth of June he was designated to
join the four American plenipotentiaries already in Europe.
The letter was transmitted through Lafayette, and to Lafayette
alone Jefferson confided his deep mortification at having to

lose an opportmiity, the only one I ever had and perhaps ever
shall have, of combining public service with public gratification,
of seeing countries whose improvements in science. In arts and
civilization it has been my fortune to admire at a distance but
never to see and at the same time of lending further aid to a cause
which has been handed on from it’s first organization to its present
stage by every effort of which my poor faculties were capable.
These however have not been such as to give satisfaction to some
of my countrymen & it has become necessary for me to remain in the
state till a later period, in the present year than is consistent with
an acceptance of what has been offered me.^

A letter written to Edmund Randolph hints at other con-
siderations which "that one being removed, might prevent

1 Jefferson Papers. Library of Congress

’ Lafayette transmitted the letter on June 26, 1781, but Jefferson did not receive it
until the beginning of August. Ibid.

ii6 THOMAS JEFFERSON

my acceptance.” The family record shows that Mrs. Jefferson
was then expecting a child who was bom on November, 1781,
and died in April of the following year. Jefferson himself was
far from being well and had not yet recovered from his acci-
dent ; but there is little doubt that he would have gladly seized
the opportunity to fulfill one of his earliest dreams and to visit
Europe, had he been free to go. However this may be, it was
on this occasion that he reiterated once more, but not for the
last time, his wish to return entirely and definitively to private
life :

Were it possible for me to determine again to enter into public
business there is no appointment whatever which would have been
so agreeable to me. But I have taken my final leave of everything
of that nature. I have retired to my farm, my family and books
from which I think nothing will evermore separate me. A desire
to leave public office with a reputation not more blotted than it
deserved will oblige me to emerge at the next session of our assem-
bly & perhaps to accept of a seat in it, but as I go with a single
object, I shall withdraw when that has been accomplished.’'

I must confess that Jefferson’s determination can scarcely
be understood or excused. He was not yet forty and, for a man
of that age, his achievements were unusual and many, but he
had by no means outlived his usefuhiess or fulfilled the tasks
he had mapped out for himself. Even supposing he had done
enough for the Unired States and did not feel any ambition to
return to Congress, there was much to be done in Virginia.
For one thing the war was not over and the situation of his
native State, his “country”, as he still called it, was as pre-
carious as ever. Even supposing the war to be of short duration
and destined to end in victory, the work of reconstruction
loomed considerable upon the horizon. Not only had planta-
tions been burned, houses destroyed, cattle killed off, Negroes
decimated in many places, but the financial resources of Virginia

'To E. Randolph, September 16, 1781. Jefferson Papers, library of Congress

GOVERNOR OF VIRGINIA

117

were nil, the currency depreciated and valueless. Above all,
republican institutions were far from secure, Jefferson was not
at all satisfied with the Constitution as adopted, there remained
many bills on the Revised Laws to be presented, defended, and
approved. The laws adopted so far might have laid the foun-
dations of true republican government, but the task was still
enormous. Was Jefferson irritated and despondent at the
ingratitude of his fellow citizens who had not rejected at once
the charges made by Nicholas? Was he so alarmed by the
health of his wife that he did not feel that he could leave her
even for a few days? Was he not rather a victim of overwork
and overexertion ? He had been severely shaken by his acci-
dent and seems to have suffered at the time a sort of nervous
breakdown, for on October 28, r78r, when writing to Washing-
ton to congratulate him on Cornwallis’ capitulation at York-
town he deplores the "state of perpetual decrepitude” to which
he is unfortunately reduced and which prevents him from
greeting Washington personally.

Several of his best friends were unable to understand or
condone his retirement. Madison himself wrote to Edmund
Randolph : ^

Great as my partiality is to Mr. Jefferson, the mode in which he
seems determined to revenge the wrong received from his country
does not appear to me to be dictated either by philosophy or
patriotism. It argues, indeed, a keen sensibility and strong con-
sciousness of rectitude. But his sensibility ought to be as great
towards the relenting as the misdoings of the Legislature, not to
mention the injustice of visiting the faults of this body on their
innocent constituents.

Monroe, ardent friend and admirer of Jefferson’s, was even
more direct when writing to acquaint his “master” with the
criticism aroused by his retirement. To which Jefferson
answered with a letter in which he poured out the bitterness of

ijune II, 1782. jRandall, I, 376

ii8

THOMAS JEFFERSON

his heart. He first recited all his different reasons for
making his choice j the fact that after scrutinizing his
heart he had found that every fiber of political ambition had
been eradicated; that he had the right to withdraw after
having been engaged thirteen years in public service ; that his
family required his attention ; that he had to attend to his
private affairs. But the true reasons came only in the next
paragraph :

That however I might have comforted myself under the dis-
approbation of the well-meaning but uninformed people, yet that
of their representatives was a shock on which I had not calculated.
... I felt that these injuries, for such they have been since acknowl-
edged, had inflicted a wound on my spirit which only will be cured
by the all-healing grave.

The man who wrote these lines had an epidermis far too
sensitive to permit him to engage in politics and least of all in
local politics. Jefferson in these particular circumstances forgot
the lesson of his old friends the Greek and Latin philosophers —
truly he was no Roman.

Yet we cannot regret very deeply Jefferson’s determination
to retire from public life at that time, since to his retirement
we owe his most extensive literary composition, one of the first
masterpieces of American literature. During the spring of
1781 he had received from the secretary of the French legation,
Barbe-Marbois, a long questionnaire on the present conditions
of Virginia. During his forced inactivity, he drew up a first
draft which was sent to Marbois, but extensively corrected
and enlarged during the following winter. A few manuscript
copies were distributed to close friends, but the “Notes on
Virginia” were not given to the public until 1787 and after
they had been rather poorly translated into French by Abbe
Morellet.^

No other document is so valuable for a complete conspectus

1 The story of the publication has been told by P. L. Ford in a most scholarly edition
of the “Notes on Virginia" in the “Writings” of JeSerson.

GOVERNOR OF VIRGINIA 119

of Jefferson’s mind and theories at that time. But two impor-
tant observations must be made at the very outset. First of
all the “Notes” were not intended for publication, and as late
as 17SS JeSerson wrote to Chastellux that ;

the strictures on slavery and on the constitution of Virginia . . .
are the parts I do not wish to have made public, at least til) I know
whether their publication would do most harm or good. It is possi-
ble that in my own country these strictures might produce an irri-
tation which would indispose the people towards the two great
objects I have in view, that is the emancipation of their slaves & the
settlement of their constitution on a firmer and more permanent
basis.” '

The second point is that the “Notes” were written for the
use of a foreigner of distinction, in answer to certain queries
proposed by him. Jefferson, therefore, is not responsible either
for the plan of the work, or the distribution into chapters, and
he necessarily had to go into more details than if he had written
solely for his fellow countr}nnen.

The twenty-three Queries cover such an enormous range of
information and contain such a mass of facts that it would have
been physically impossible for any one to complete the work
in so short a time, if it had been an impromptu investigation.
We can accept without hesitation the statement of the “Auto-
biography” on the methods of composition employed in the
“Notes” :

I had always made a practice whenever an opportunity occurred
of obtaining any information of our country, which might be of use
in any station public or private to commit it to writing. These
memoranda were on loose papers, bundled up without order, and
difficult of recurrence when I had occasion for a particular one. I
thought this a good occasion to embody their substance, which I did
in the order of Mr. Marbois’ queries, so as to answer his wish and
to arrange them for my own use.

‘ June 7, 1785. Memorial Edition, V, 3.

120

THOMAS JEFFERSON

The book was printed in France, in England, in Germany,
and went through many editions hi America. It probably did
more than any other publication to propagate the doctrine of
Americanism, for, in his retreat of MonticeUo, Jefferson formu-
lated the creed and gave final expression to the hopes, aspirations,
and feelings that were to govern his country for several gener-
ations. It also gives a complete picture of the mind of Jeffer-
son at that date, when he thought he had accomplished the
task assigned to him and felt he could stop to take stock, not
merely of his native “country”, but of the whole United States
of America.

Unimaguiative, unpoetical, imwihing to express personal
emotions as he was, he had always been deeply moved by
certain natural scenes. His description of the Natural Bridge,
the site of which he owned, is well remembered.

You involuntarily fall on your hands and feet, creep to the para-
pet, and peep over it. Looking down from this height about a
minute, gave me a violent head ache. If the view from the top be
painful and intolerable, that from below is delightful in an equal
extreme. It is impossible for the emotions arising from the sublime
to be felt beyond what they are here; so beautiful an arch, so
elevated, so light, and springing as it were up to heaven, the rapture
of the spectator is reaUy indescribable !

The “passage of the Patowmac through the Blue ridge”
is even more famous, and the broad, peaceful, almost infinite
scene is painted by the hand of a master :

It is a true contrast to the foreground. It is as placid and delight-
ful as that is wild and tremendous. For the mountain being cloven
asunder, she presents to your eye, through the cleft, a small catch
of small blue horizon, at an infinite distance in the plain country,
inviting you, as it were, from the riot and tumult roaring around, to
pass through the breach to the calm below.

Only Bar tram a few years later, and Chateaubriand at the
beginning of the next century, with much longer and more

GOVERNOR OF VIRGINIA

121

elaborate descriptions, could equal or surpass these few strokes
of description. Jefferson was truly the first to discover and
depict to Europeans the beauty of American natural scenery,
and to proclaim with genmne American pride that “this scene
is worth a voyage across the Atlantic — and is perhaps one of
the most stupendous in nature.” It matters little that he
followed V oltaire in the origin of fossils, to decide timidly in
1787 that we must be contented to acknowledge that “this
great phenomenon is as yet unsolved. ” I shall not even remark
on the completeness and exactness of his list of plants, “me-
dicinal, esculent, ornamental or useful for fabrication ”, of which
he gives the popular names as well as the Linnesan, “as the
latter might not convey precise information to a foreigner”,
or on his list “of the quadrupeds of North America”; nor
shall I mention his long dissertation on “ the bones of Mamoths”
found on the North American continent and his refutation of
Bufion. Far more interesting is his protest against the asser-
tion of the great French naturalist that “the animals common
both to the old and new world are smaller in the latter, that
those peculiar to the new are in a smaller scale, that those which
have been domesticated in both have degenerated in America.”
He composed with much tabulation a complete refutation of
Buffon’s error, and demonstrated that plants as weU as animals
reached a development hitherto unknown under the new condi-
tions and the favorable circumstances of the American climate.

Wlien it came to the aborigines, he had little to say of the
South American Indians, but of North American Indians he
could speak “somewhat from his own knowledge” as well as
from the observations of others better acquainted with them
and on whose truth and judgment he could rely.

Not only they are well formed in body and in mind as the homo
sapiens Europaeus, but from what we know of their eloquence it is
of a superior lustre. ... I may challenge the whole orations of
Demosthenes and Cicero, and of many more prominent orators.

122

THOMAS JEFFERSON

if Europe has furnished any more eminent, to produce a single
passage, superior to the speech of Logan, a Mingo chief, to Lord Dun-
more when Governor of this State.

But his temper was thoroughly aroused when he discovered
that Abbe Raynal had undertaken to apply the theory of
Buffon to the white men who had settled in America.

If this were true and if climateric conditions were such as to
prevent mental and physical growth there would be little hope
for the newly constituted country to ever become a great nation.
Nature itself pronouncing against the Americans what chance could
they have to be able to ever come up to the level of the older nations.
Sentenced to remain forever an inferior race, this struggle to conquer
independence would have proved futile, and sooner or later, they
would fall the prey of superior people.

Never before had Jefferson been so deeply stirred and moved,
never before had he felt so thoroughly American as in his
spirited answer to Raynal, when he claimed for the new-born
country not only tmlimited potentialities, but actual superior-
ity over the mother country :

“America has not yet produced one good poet.” When we shall
have existed as a people as long as the Greeks did before they pro-
duced a Homer, the Romans a Virgil, the French a Racine and
Voltaire, the English a Shakespeare and Milton, should this reproach
be still true, we wiU inquire from what unfriendly causes it has
proceeded, that the other countries of Europe and quarters of the
earth shall not have inscribed any name in the roll of poet. But
neither has America produced “one able mathematician, one man
of genius in a single art or science.” In war we have produced a
Washington, whose memory will be adored while liberty shall have
votaries, whose name wiU triumph over time, and will in future ages
assume its just station among the most celebrated worthies of the
world, when that wretched philosophy shall be forgotten which
would have arranged him among the degeneracies of nature. In
Physics we have produced a Franklin, than whom no one of the

GOVERNOR OF VIRGINIA 123

present age has made more important discoveries, nor has enriched
philosophy with more, or more ingenious solutions of the phaenom-
ena of nature. ... As in philosophy and war, so in government,
in oratory, in painting, in the plastic arts, we might show that Amer-
ica, though but a child of yesterday, has already given hopeful
proofs of genius, as well as of the nobler kinds, which arouse the
best feelings of man, which call him into action, which substantiate
his freedom, and conduct him to happiness, as of the subordinate,
which serve to amuse him only. We therefore suppose that this
reproach is as unjust as it is unkind ; and that, of the geniuses which
adorn the present age, America contributes her full share. . . .
The present war having so long cut off all communications with
Great Britain, we are not able to make a fair estimate of the state
of science in the country. The spirit in which she wages war, is
the only sample before our eyes, and that does not seem the legiti-
mate offspring either of science or civilization. The sun of her
glory is fast descending to the horizon. Her Philosophy has
crossed her channel, her freedom the Atlantic, and herself seems pass-
ing to that awful dissolution whose issue is not given human fore-
sight to scan.

This is the fullest and most complete expression of national
consciousness and national pride yet uttered by Jefferson. The
American eagle was spreading her wing and preparing to fly by
herself. The American transcended the Vh-ginian and looked
confidently at the future.

In Query VIII, we come again to a question of national
importance. The country being what it is, it would take at
least one hundred years for Virginia to reach the present square-
mile population of Great Britain. The question then arises
whether a larger population being desirable, the State should
not encourage foreigners to settle in as large numbers as pos-
sible. To unrestricted immigration, Jefferson, fearful for the
integrity of the racial stock, fearful also for the maintenance
of institutions so hardly won and yet so precariously established,
was unequivocally opposed. In a most remarkable passage

124

THOMAS JEFFERSON

lie stated the very reasons that after him were to be put forth
again and again, until a policy of selective and restrictive
immigration was finally adopted. I would not say that he was
a hundred and fifty years ahead of his time, but a hundred and
fifty years ago he formulated with his usual “ felicity of expres-
sion”, feelings and forebodings which existed more or less con-
fusedly in many minds. When he spoke thus he was more of a
spokesman than a prophet of America ;

Every species of government has its specific principles. Ours
perhaps are more peculiar than those of any other in the universe.
It is a composition of the freest principles of the English constitution,
with others derived from natural right and natural reason. To
these nothing can be more opposed than the maxims of absolute
monarchies. Yet from such we are to expect the greatest number
of immigrants. They will bring with them the principles of the
governments they leave, imbibed in their early youth ; or, if able
to throw them off, it wiU be in exchange for an imbounded licentious-
ness, passing, as is usual, from one extreme to another. It would be
a miracle were they to stop precisely at the point of temperate
liberty. These principles, with their language, they will transmit
to their children. In proportion to their numbers, they will share
with us the legislation. They will infuse into it their spirit, warp
and bias its directions, and render it a heterogeneous, incoherent,
distracted mass. . . . Is it not safer to wait with patience 27 years
and three months longer for the attainment of any degree of popula-
tion desired or expected? May not our government be more
homogeneous, more peaceable, more durable ? Suppose 20 millions
of republican Americans [were] thrown all of a sudden into France,
what would be the condition of that kingdom ? If it would be more
turbulent, less happy, less strong, we may believe that the addition
of half a million of foreigners to our present numbers would produce
a similar effect here. ... I mean not that these doubts should
be extended to the importation of useful artificers. . . . Spare
no expence in obtaining them. They will after a time go to the
plough and to the hoe ; but in the mean time they will teach us some-
thing we do not know.

GOVERNOR OF VIRGINIA

125

Everything is there ! That America is essentially and should
remain an Anglo-Saxon civilization ; the fear that unassimilated
immigration may corrupt the institutions of the country and
bring into it uneradicable germs of absolutism ; the admission
even that America needs a certain class of immigrants, of
specialists to develop new arts and new industries. In 1781,
JeSerson was not only an American, but a hundred per cent.
American, and the sentiments he expressed then were to reecho
in the halls of Congress through the following generations
whenever the question was discussed.

The government as it was presently organized was far from
perfect — it even had “very capital defects in it.” First of
ah, it was not a truly representative government since, owing
to the representation by counties, it happened that fourteen
thousand men living in one part of the country gave law to
upwards of thirty thousand living in another ; in spite of the
theoretical separation of powers, ah the powers of government,
legislature, executive, and judiciary, were vested in the legis-
lative body. “The concentrating these in the same hands is
precisely the definition of despotic government.” Assuming
that the present legislators of Virginia were perfectly honest
and disinterested, it would not be very long before a change
might come, for “mankind soon learn to make interested uses
of every right and power which they possess, or may assume.”

“With money we will get men,” said Caesar, “and with men we
wiU get money.” . . . They should look forward to a time, and
that not a distant one, when a corruption in this, as in the country
from which we derive our origin, wiU have seized the heads of the
government, and be spread by them through the body of the people ;
when they will purchase the voices of the people, and make them
pay the price. Human nature is the same in every side of the
Atlantic and will be alike influenced by the same causes. The time
to guard against corruptions and tyranny, is before they shall have
gotten hold of us.”

126 THOMAS JEFFERSON

Before proceeding any further, it may be well to pause, in
order to analyze more carefully these statements of Jefferson’s.
It will soon appear that they do not form a perfectly logical
construction and are not part of an a priori system. He had
proclaimed his faith in the ultimate recognition of truth, but he
did not believe that unaided truth should necessarily prevail,
for human nature being very imperfect, very narrow and very
selfish, the best institutions have a permanent tendency to
degenerate. Jefferson had already clearly in mind the famous
maxim “eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.” It is this
curious combination of unshakable faith in the ultimate triumph
of truth and healthy pessimism as to the present possibilities,
that distinguishes Jefferson from the “closet politicians” and
theoretical philosophers. It is an alliance of the contraries
which seems absurd to many Frenchmen, but is often found in
English statesmen, and is probably more common in America
than in any other nation. In this respect as in many others
Jefferson was typically American.

His criticism of the legislature came clearly from two different
motives. He attempted first of all to demonstrate to himself
that the Assembly that had listened to charges against him was
not a truly representative body, not only because the attribu-
tion of two delegates to each county, irrespective of the popu-
lation, was iniquitous, but also because, owing to emergencies,
the Assembly had come to decide themselves what mxmber
would constitute a quonun. Thus an oligarchy or even a
monarchy coidd finally be substituted for a regular assembly
by almost imperceptible transitions. “Omnia mala exempla
a honis orta sunt; sed uii imperium ad ignaros aut minus bonos
pervenit nomm illud exemplum ab dignis ei idoneis ad indignos et
non idoneos fertur”

This is nothing but a re-affirmation of the aristocratic doctrine
of the “Literary Bible.” Once more, the aristocrat of mind
revolts, for “when power is placed in the hands of men who are

GOVERNOR OF VIRGINIA 127

ignorant or not so good, it may be taken from those who are
deserving and truly noble to be transferred to unworthy and
ignoble men.” This is the constant undercurrent which runs
through Jefferson’s political theories and unexpectedly reap-
pears at the surface from time to time. A government of the
best minds, elected by a populace sufficiently enlightened to
select the best minds, — such is at that time Jefferson’s ideal of
government.

On the other hand his attitude towards dictatorship, as it
appears in the “Notes on Virginia”, is no less significant for a
true estimate of his character. Unless the views expressed
there are carefully considered and kept well in mind, we might
fall into the common error of attributing to some mysterious
influence of the French Revolution and the French philosophers
the opinions expressed by Jefferson on presidential tenure,
during the debate on the Constitution and his famous quarrel
with Hamilton. As a matter of fact, he had expressed the very
same views aheady and even more emphatically on a previous
occasion, when George Nicholas had proposed in the Assembly
“that a Dictator be appointed in this Commonwealth who
should have the power of disposing of the lives and fortunes of
the Citizens thereof without being subject to account”; the
motion seconded by Patrick Henry “been lost only by a few
votes.” ^ One may even wonder if the accusation of inefficiency
against Jefferson had not been introduced by the same George
Nicholas, in order to clear the way for the appointment of a
dictator. Hence the impassioned tone of Jefferson’s refutation.
Deeply stirred and deeply hurt in his amour-propre, Jefferson
incorporated in the “Notes on Virginia” the speech he would
have made on the occasion had he been an orator.

How must we find our efforts and sacrifices abused and baffled,
if we may still, by a single vote, be laid prostrate at the feet of one
man. In God’s name, from whence have they derived this power?

‘ To Arch, Stuart, September 8, i8i8. Ford, III, 231, n.

128 THOMAS JEFFERSON

Is it from any principle in our new constitution expressed or implied ?
Every lineament of that expressed or implied, is in full opposition
to it. . . . Necessities which dissolve a government, do not convey
its authority to an oligarchy or monarchy. They throw back into
the hands of the people the powers they had delegated, and leave
them as individuals to shift for themselves. A leader may offer,
but not impose himself, nor be imposed on them. Much less can
their necks be submitted to his sword, their breath be held at his
will or caprice. . . . The very thought alone was treason against
the people ; was treason against mankind in general , as rivetting
forever the chains which bow down their necks, by giving to their
oppressors a proof which they would have trumpetted through the
universe, of the imbecillity of republican government, in times of
pressing danger, to shield them from harm. Those who assume
the right of giving away the reins of government in any case, must
be sure that the herd, whom they hand on to the rods and hatchet
of the dictator, will lay their necks on the block when he shall nod
to them. But if our assemblies supposed such a resignation in the
people, I hope they mistook their character. . . . Searching for
the foundations of this proposition, I can find none which may
pretend a colour of right or reason, but the defect before developed,
that there is no barrier between the legislative, executive, and judi-
ciary departments. . . . Our situation is indeed perilous, and I
hope my countr}mien will be sensible of it, and will apply, at a proper
season, the proper remedy ; which is a convention to fix the consti-
tution, to amend its defects, to bind up the several branches of
government by certain laws, which, when they transgress, their
acts shall become nullities ; to render unnecessary an appeal to the
people, or in other words a rebellion, on every infraction of their
rights, on the peril that their acquiescence shah, be construed into
an hitention to surrender those rights.

This is much more than an occasional outburst written under
a strong emotional stress. Jefferson had discovered in his own
country the existence of a group of men stanchly opposed to
the republican form of government, ready in an emergency to
go beyond the powers that had been delegated to them — not

GOVERNOR OF VIRGINIA 129

necessarily dishonest men, but dangerous because they did not
have a correct conception of their rights and duties. All the
controversy with the Federalists already exists in germ, in this
declaration, and Jefferson from the very first had taken his
position. The immediate effect was to sever the last bonds
which still tied him to the aristocratic spirit of the social class
to which he belonged by birth, and to make him raise a protest
against the fact that, “the majority of men in the state, who
pay and fight for its support are unrepresented in the legislature,
the roll of freeholders entitled to vote, not including generally
the half of those on the roll of militia, or of the tax gatherers.”

“It has been thought that corruption is restrained by con-
fining the right of suffrage to a few of the wealthier people”;
but experience has shown, irrespective of any consideration of
justice or right, that a truly republican form of government is
not safe in their hands. What will be the conclusion ? That
suffrage must be extended so as to become universal. The
people themselves are the only safe depositories of government.
“If every individual which composes this mass participates of
the ultimate authority, the government will be safe ; because
the corruption of the whole mass will exceed any private re-
sources of wealth.” But if the people are the ultimate
guardians of their liberties, they must also be rendered the safe
guardians of it. Hence the necessity of providing for them an
education adapted to the years, the capacity, and the conditions
of every one, and directed toward their freedom and happiness.
On this occasion Jefferson reproduced the view already expressed
in the BiU for the More General Diffusion of Knowledge, as well
as the tenor of the first section of the Bill for Religious Freedom,
but with new considerations which could scarcely be incor-
porated in a statute.

Then comes a conclusion unexpected and revealing, a sort of
pessimism little in accordance with the supposed democratic
faith of the writer ; there is no inherent superior wisdom in the

130 THOMAS JEFFERSON

people, but it happens that under stress they so rise as to be
superior to themselves, and it is for those who direct the course
of the State to make the best of this fugitive opportunity :

The spirit of the times may alter, wOl alter. Our rulers will be-
come corrupt, our people careless. A single zealot may commence
persecutions, and better men be his victims. It can never be too
often repeated, that the time for fixing every essential right on a
legal basis is while our rulers are honest, and ourselves united.
From the conclusion of this war we shall go down hill. It will not
then be necessary to resort every moment to the people for support.
They will be forgotten therefore and their rights disregarded. They
will forget themselves, but in the sole faculty of making money,
and will never think of uniting to effect a due respect for their
rights. The shackles, therefore, which shall not be knocked off at
the conclusion of this war, will remain on us long, will be made
heavier and heavier, till our rights shall revive or expire in a con-
vulsion.

Is this a dreamer, a philosopher, a mere theorician, or a very
alert and keen politician with a high ideal and an exact reali-
zation of the people’s limitations? This pessimistic view of
human nature and human society did not make Jefferson
entirely cynical, since he kept his faith in his ideal and never
questioned the eminent superiority of the republican form of
government. But he knew men too well to have faith in their
collective intelligence and disinterestedness, the naive faith of
so many French philosophers. If in this passage Jefferson
remmds one of any French -writers, it is not Rousseau, nor
Helv^tius, nor even Montesquieu, but of Montaigne, the Mayor
of Bordeaux, who after the pestilence retired to his “Library”
and composed his famous “Essais.” One may well understand
why Jefferson took such care to recommend his friends not to
let the “Notes” out of their hands, and not to permit it to be
published in any circumstances. The ITench like to say
‘Houks les veritis ne soni pas bonnes a dire” — these were truths

GOVERNOR OF VIRGINIA

131

that should not be permitted to leak out and to circulate broad-
cast among the people : at most they were good only to be dis-
closed to this elite who had at heart the gradual betterment of
the “plain people.”

Jefferson’s opposition to slavery rests on the same calcu-
lating motives. The existence of slavery is as degrading for
the master as for the slave ; it is destructive of the morals of the
people, and of industry.

And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have
removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the
people that these liberties are the gift of God ? That they are not to
be violated but with his wrath ? . . . It is impossible to be temper-
ate and to pursue this subject through the various considerations
of policy, of morals, of history natural and civil.

But it does not ensue that Negroes should ever be placed
on a footing of equality with the whites. To pronounce that
they are decidedly inferior would require long observation, and
we must hesitate

to degrade a whole race of men from the work in the scale of beings
which their Creator may perhaps have given them. ... I advance
it therefore, as a suspicion only, that the blacks, whether originally
a distinct race, or made distinct by time and circumstance, are
inferior to the whites in the endowment both of body and mind.
It is not against experience to suppose that different species of the
same genus, or varieties of the same species, may possess different
qualifications. Will not a lover of natural history then, one who
views the gradations in all the races of animals with the eye of
philosophy, excuse an effort to keep those in the department of
man as distinct as nature has formed them.

However the case may be, the blacks cannot be incorporated
into the State, and the only solution after they are emancipated
and educated is to “colonize them to such places as the circum-
stances of the time shall render most proper, sending them out
with arms, implements of household and of the handicraft arts,

132

THOMAS JEFFERSON

seedsj pairs of the useful animals, etc., to declare them a free
and independent people, and extend to them our alliance and
protection, till they shah have acquired strength.” But the
freed slave “is to be removed beyond the reach of mixture”,
and the pirrity of the white stock must be preserved.

Throughout the book Jefferson imtiringly harps on the fact
that American civilization is different from any other that has
developed in Europe, and that principles of “economy” which
apply to European nations should not be transferred “without
calculating the difference of circumstance which should often
produce a difference of results.” The main difference lies in
the fact that while in Europe “the lands are already cultivated,
or locked up against the cultivator, we have an immensity of
land courting the industry of the husbandman.” America
is essentially agricultural, and agricultural it must remain;

Those who labour in the earth are the chosen people of God, if
ever he had a chosen people, whose breasts he has made his peculiar
deposit for substantial and genuine virtue. It is the focus in which
he keeps alive that sacred fire, which otherwise might escape from
the face of the earth. Corruption of morals in the mass of cultiva-
tors is a phaenomenon of which no age nor nation has furnished an
example. , . . While we have land to labour then, let us never
wish to see our citizens occupied at a work-bench, or twirling a
distaff. Carpenters, masons, smiths, are wanting in husbandry;
but, for the general operations of manufacture, let our work-shops
remain in Europe. It is better to carry provisions and materials
to work men there, than bring them to the provisions and materials,
and with them their manners and principles.

This vision of an American entirely given to agricultural pur-
suits may look Utopian in the extreme, and would be Utopian if
Jefferson had really believed that it was susceptible of becoming
an actual fact. But, in practice, this ideal was on the contrary
subject to many adjustments and modifications.

Jefferson’s relativism is even more clearly marked in the last

GOVERNOR OF VIRGINIA

133

chapter, which forms the real conclusion of the book. It out-
lines the future policy of the United States with regard to
foreign nations ; it formulates a peaceful ideal which has
remained on the whole the ideal of America. Once more it
illustrates that curious balancing of two contrary principles so
characteristic of the philosopher of Americanism as well as of
the country itself.

Young as we are, and with such a country before us to fill with
people and with happiness, wc should point in that direction the
whole generative force of nature, wasting none of it in efforts of
mutual destruction It shoidd be our endeavour to cultivate the
peace and friendship of every nation, even of that which has injured
us most, when we shall have carried our point against her Our
interest will be to open the doors of commerce, and to knock off all
its shackles, giving perfect freedom to all persons for the want of
whatever they may choose to bring into our ports, and asking the
same in theirs Never was so much false arithmetic employed on
any subject, as that which has been employed to persuade nations
that it is their interest to go to war. Were the money which it has
cost to gain, at the close of a long war, a little town, or a little terri-
tory, the right to cut wood here, to catch fish there, expended in
improving what we already possess, in making roads, opening rivers,
building ports, improving the arts and finding employment for their
idle poor, it would render them much stronger, much wealthier and
happier.

“This,” adds Jefferson, “I hope will be our wisdom.” But
it is only a hope and circumstances which cannot be changed
by pious hopes exist and have to be confronted. In order to
avoid every cause of conflict it would be necessary to abandon
the ocean altogether, and “to leave to others to bring what we
shall want, and to carry what we shall spare.” This unfor-
tunately is impossible, since a large portion of the Apaerican
people are attached to commerce and insist on following the sea.
What then is the answer? — Preparedness. — “Wars then

134

THOMAS JEFFERSON

must sometimes be our lot ; and all the wise can do, will be to
avoid that half of them which would be produced by our own
follies, and our own acts of injustice; and to make for the
other half the best preparations one can.”

One would not have to search long in the speeches of Wood-
row Wilson to find the same idea expressed in almost identical
terms. Even a Republican president such as Mr. Coolidge
did not speak differently, when he simultaneously proposed
conferences of disarmament and recommended that appropri-
ation for the navy be enormously increased. This combination
of will to peace, these reiterations of the pacific policies of the
United States have been since the early days combined with the
fixed determination to maintain a naval force adequate to cope
with any attacking force. For such is the policy advocated by
Jefferson. One should not be deceived by his very modest
statement, “the sea is the field on which we should meet an
European enemy. On that element it is necessary that we
should possess some power.” What he proposes is simply the
building in one year of a fleet of thirty ships, eighteen of which
might be ships of the line, and twelve frigates, with eighteen
hundred guns. And he significantly adds, “I state this only as
one year’s possible exertion, without deciding whether more or
less than a year should be thus applied.” But, so as not to
leave any potential aggressor in doubt as to the resources of
America, he mentions that this naval force should by no means
he “so great as we are able to make it.”

After stating categorically his principles, Jefferson did not
object to minor modifications when it came to practice. As
early as the winter of 1781 he had found and determined the
main tenets of his political philosophy. It was essentially
American and practical. The idea never entered his mind that
in order to establish an American government it was necessary
to make a tabula rasa of what existed before. As a matter of
fact, Americans had certain vested rights through several

GOVERNOR OF VIRGINIA

135

charters enumerated by Jefferson in answer to Query XIII ;
they had revolted in defense of these rights, but the principles of
their government, “perhaps more peculiar than those of any
other in the imiverse”, were simply “a composition of the freest
principles of the English constitution, with others derived from
natural right and natural reason.” Essentially “founded in
common law as weU as common right”, it was not necessarily
the best possible form of government or the only one imaginable,
“for every species of government has its specific principle.”
But despite its imperfections, it was better adapted to American
conditions than any other that could be devised. At that time,
at least, Jefferson did not seem to suspect that it could be taken
as a model by any other nations, or that its main principles
would prove so “ contagious,” The situation of America was
unique. Unlimited agricultural lands extended to the west,
and one could estimate that it would take at least a century to
reach a density of population comparable to that of the British
Isles. For a long time America would remain mainly agricul-
tural, with a population scattered in farms instead of being
concentrated in large cities, and would keep many of the virtues
inherent in country life. In addition, the country would be
practically free from any attack by land, as she had no powerful
neighbors. She was geographically isolated from the rest of
the world, and even if she were attacked by sea, it would be by a
fleet operating far from its base and therefore at a disadvantage.
No permanent army had to be maintained and a comparatively
small fleet would suf&ce for protection. Free from the ordinary
“sores” of civilization, not yet wealthy but prosperous, for,
says Jefferson “I never saw a native American begging in the
streets or highways”, a country peaceful and with hatred
towards none, not even to “that nation which has injured us
most”, — ■ such is the ideal picture of America drawn by Jeffer-
son for himself and his French correspondent during the winter
of 1781-1782.

136 THOMASJEFFERSON

Whatever faults existed would be corrected in time. If
slavery could be abolished and the last vestiges of an hereditary
aristocracy eradicated, little would be left to be desired. Yet
it would not be a complete Arcadia, for Jefierson did not be-
lieve that a state of perfection once reached could be main-
tamed without efiort. Several dangers would always threaten
America. The influx of foreigners might alter the character of
her institutions. In spite of her peaceful ideals, dangers from
the outside might threaten her prosperity. But on the whole,
the country, even in its “infant state”, was in no wise inferior
to any European nation. In aU the sciences it gave promise
of extraordinary achievements. In architecture, to be sure, it
seemed that “ a genius has shed its malediction over this land”,
but artists and artisans could be induced to come, and even if
America never reached the artistic proficiency of some European
nations, it was and would remain more simple, more frugal,
more virtuous than nations whose population congregate in
large cities.

Such, briefly told, is the conception of Americanism reached
by Jefferson when he wrote the “Notes on Virginia.” He had
not had any direct contact with Europe, but he had read enor-
mously and he had come to the conclusion that, reasonably
secure against foreign aggressions, keeping her commerce at a
minimum, America could develop along her own lines and, re-
viving on a new land the old Anglo-Saxon principles thwarted
by kingly usurpations and church fabrications, bring about an
Anglo-Saxon milleimium which no other country might ever
dream of reaching. It now remains to see to what extent and
under what influences Jefierson came to modify certain of his
conclusions, following his prolonged contact with Europe.

CHAPTER IV

A STATESMAN’S APPRENTICESHIP

The year 1782 was for Jefferson a year of trial and suffering.
A child was born to Mrs. Jefferson on May 8 ; she never re-
covered fully and soon it appeared that she was irrevocably
doomed. This tragic, touching story had better be told in
the simple words of his daughter Martha, then nine years
of age :

As a nurse no female had ever more tenderness nor anxiety. He
nursed my poor mother in turn with aunt Carr and her own sister —
sitting up with her and administering her medicines and drink to
the last. For four months that she lingered he was never out of
calling ; when not at her bed-side, he was writing in a small room
which opened immediately at the head of her bed. A moment
before the closing scene, he was led from the room in a state of
insensibility by his sister, Mrs. Carr, who with great difficulty, got
him into the library, where he fainted, and remained so long insensi-
ble that they feared he never would revive. The scene that followed
I did not witness, but the violence of his emotion, when, almost by
stealth, I entered his room by night, to this day I dare not describe
to myself. He kept his room three weeks, and I was never a moment
from his side. He walked almost incessantly night and day, only
l 3 dng down occasionally, when nature was completely exhausted,
on a pallet that had been brought in during his long fainting fit.
My aunts remained constantly with him for some weeks — I do not
remember how many. When at last he left his room, he rode out,
and from that time he was incessantly on horseback, rambling about
the mountain, in the least frequented roads, and just as often
through the woods. In those melancholy rambles I was his constant
companion — a solitary witness to many a burst of grief, the remem-

brance of which has consecrated particular scenes of that lost home
beyond the power to obliterate.

In Jefierson’s prayer book is found this simple entry :

“Martba Wayles Jefferson died September 6, 1782, at ii
o'clock 45 minutes A.M.”

She was buried in the little enclosure in which rested already
three of her children ; on a simple slab of white marble her hus-
band had the following inscription engraved :

To the memory of
Martha Jefferson,

Daughter of John Wayles :

Born October 19th, 1748 O.S.

Intermarried with
Thomas Jefferson
January ist 1772 ;

Torn from him by death

September 6th 1782

This monument of his love is inscribed

El Sk QavhvTOiv Trep KaraKiidovr' eiv A'/Sao,

AfirAp iyeb KaKeWu (pLXou pep.vftaop,’ traipov}

If in the house of Hades men forget their dead
Yet wiU I even there remember my dear companion.

Whether, as Tucker thought, Jefferson selected a Greek
quotation so as not to make any display of his feelings to the
casual passer-by, or whether Greek had so really become his
own habit of thought that he could not think of any better
way to express his grief, is a matter of conjecture. He was
not the man to speak of himself and his sorrows, even to his
closest friends. But it was probably at this time that he wrote
these lines found after his death in his pocketbook: “There
is a time in human suffering when exceeding sorrows are but
like snow falling on an iceberg”, and in Latin, “Heu quanto
minus esi cum reliquis versari quam tui meminisse.’’

^ ffiad XXn, 389.

A STATESMAN’S APPRENTICESHIP 139

At thirty-nine he was left a widower with a house full of
children. Martha, born in 1772, Mary born in 1778, Lucy
Elizabeth, the baby just bom, who was to die two years later,
and in addition the children of his friend and brother-in-law
Carr, whom he had adopted at the death of their father. As
soon as he had recovered from the first shock, Jefferson went
with the children to the house of Colonel Archibald Cary, at
Ampthill, in Chesterfield County, where he had them inoculated
for the smallpox. “While engaged as their chief nurse on the
occasion, he received notice of his appointment by Congress
as Plenipotentiary to Europe, to be associated with Dr. Frank-
lin and Mr. Adams in negotiating peace (November 13, 1782),” ^
He was just emerging from the stupor of mind which had
rendered him “as dead to the world as she whose loss occa-
sioned it.” ^ It appeared to him that “public interest and
the state of liis mind concurred in recommending the change of
scene proposed; and he accepted the appointment.” ®

The next three months were spent in preparing for the jour-
ney. He made arrangements for his children and wrote a very
touching letter to Washington, evincing once more that re-
luctance to express affectionate feeling so often found in
Americans, a result of early education and training as much as
of the national temperament: “Were I to indulge myself in
those warm effusions which this subject forever prompts, they
would wear an appearance of adulation very foreign to my
nature ; for such is the prostitution of language, that sincerity
has no longer distinct terms in which to express her own
truths.” ^

The ship that was to carry him to France was caught in the
ice at the entrance of the Chesapeake, with no prospect of
sailing before the beginning of March. When news came early

* “Domestic Life”, p. 67.

® To Chastellus, 'November 26, 1782, in Randall, 1 , 1782.

® “Autobiography”, Memorial Edition, I, 76.

* January 22, 1783. Ibid., IV, 215.

140

THOMAS JEFFERSON

in February that the negotiations were making satisfactory
progress, he felt some doubts about the desirability of a voy-
age which entailed so much expense, and placed the matter in
the hands of Congress. It was not until April i, however, that
he was informed that the object of his appointment was “so
far advanced as to render [it] unnecessary for him to pursue
his voyage.” He left for Virginia a few days afterwards. For
the third time his plans for visiting Europe had been thwarted,
but he does not seem to have resented it so deeply as previously.

The wounds inflicted to his amour-propre by the Virginia
Assembly were healing. He had renewed his contact with
pubhc affairs, and when, on June 6, he was chosen as delegate
to Congress, with Samuel Hardy, John F. Mercer, Arthur
Lee, and James Monroe, he accepted without hesitation. The
two years which were to elapse between June, 1782, and July
5, 1784, the date of his final departure from France on the
Ceres, are not the most eventful or the most picturesque of
Jefferson’s career. In many respects, however, they are the
fullest and the most important for a true understanding of his
mind and character. In the absence of Franklin and Adams he
stood out in Congress, head and shoulders above his colleagues ;
he was placed on most of the important committees, he com-
pleted his acquaintance with the internal and foreign policies
of the United States, he reported on measures of vital impor-
tance and crystallized his opinion on fundamental problems.

Before being chosen as a delegate to Congress, Jefferson had
already decided “to lend a hand to the laboring oar” and to
participate in the affairs of his State, if not as a legislator at
least as an adviser and counsellor. From the conversation he
hadheld in Richmond with “ as many members ” of the Assembly
“as he could”, he had concluded that Virginia was ready to
call a convention to revise the Constitution of 1776. On
June 17 he wrote again to Madison, inclosing his ideas on the

^ To Madison, May 7, 1783. Ford, III, 339.

A STATESMAN’S APPRENTICESHIP 141

“amendments necessary.” No convention was called at that
time, but Jefferson’s memorandum was printed in pamphlet
form later in Paris, and he added it to his “Notes on Virginia.”
First of all he reassured that the Constitution of 1776 had no
legal permanent value, being simply the result of the delibera-
tion of a General Assembly, in no way different from the suc-
ceeding Assemblies. A power superior to that of the ordinary
legislature could alone have authority to decide on a constitu-
tion. This could only be done by recommending “the good
people of the State” to choose delegates “with powers to form
a constitution of government for them, and to declare those
fundamentals to which all our laws present and future shall be
subordinate.” Many of the provisions of the proposed con-
stitution were not original and, as indicated by Jefferson him-
self in his letter to Madison, had been tried in other States.
The document, however, may serve to illustrate the progress
accomplished by Jefferson in the science of government since
he had written his first State paper, and to show how far he
still remained from his reputed views on democracy.

Although stiU a free State, Virginia was no longer completely
independent, since she had entered a society of States, and it
was acknowledged that; “The confederation is made a part
of this constitution, subject to such future alterations as shall
be agreed to by the legislature of this State, and by all the other
confederating States.”

Almost universal suffrage was granted, the vote being given
to “AU free male citizens of full age, and sane mind, who for
one year before shall have been resident in the country, or shall
through the whole of that time have possessed therein real prop-
erty to the value of — , or shall for the same time have been en-
rolled in the militia.”

This was an immediate consequence of the contractual con-
cept of society and it is not without some interest to remark
that this principle stood in direct contradiction to the physio-

142 THOMAS JEFFERSON

cratic doctrine; for it was the contention of the Physiocrats
that, society resting essentially on real property, those who
own the land can alone participate in the government of the
country. If, on the contrary, society is considered as an
association of men who agree to live together in order to
secure fuller enjoyment of their fundamental rights, all the
signatories to the compact must have the same rights as well
as the same obligations in the government of the association
thus formed ^

Yet it remained understood that the voters were not to be
intrusted with all the details of government, and Jefferson
thought it desirable to establish certain safeguards against
the possible lack of knowledge of the electors. They chose
delegates and senators, but the governor was to be appointed
by joint ballot of both houses of the Assembly, and the same
procedure was to be followed in choosing a Council of State to
advise the governor, the judges of the High Court of Chancery,
the General Court and Court of Admiralty, while the judges of
inferior courts were to be appointed by the governor on recom-
mendation of the Council of State. The powers of the gov-
ernor were to be strictly limited and it was made clear that
although the old English title was preserved, the chief execu-
tive of the State had “none of the powers exercised under our
former government by the Crown” : “We give hi m those
powers only which are necessary to execute the laws (and ad-
minister the government), and which are not in their nature
either legislative or judiciary.” The governor had a sort of
suspensive veto. The military was to be subordinate to the
civil power, and the printing press to be subject to no other re-
straint but liability to legal prosecution for false facts printed
and published. The plan provided also for the gradual aboli-
tion of slavery after the year 1800.

^ This point appears even more dearly in Jefferson correspondence with Du Pont de
Nemours, to appear shortly.

A STATESMAN’S APPRENTICESHIP 143

The most remarkable feature of this scheme was the strict
limitation of popular participation in the government. The
only power recognized as belonging to the people was that of
selecting delegates to both Houses, and of appointing delegates
to a constitutional convention whenever “any of the three
branches of the government, concurring in opinion each by the
voice of two-thirds of their existing number, decided that such a
convention is necessary for amending the constitution.” We
are very far from government by referendum and even by
periodic elections, since none of the State officials were directly
appointed by the people. Jefferson had not at that time
departed from his fundamental idea that government must
be placed in the hands of well-qualified experts, carefully
selected and appointed. The “Constitution of Virginia”
was a “true form of Republican government”, but by
no means demagogical or even truly democratic. Curiously
enough, and through mere coincidence, the essential features
of the present constitution of France closely resemble the
general outline of the plan proposed by Jefferson. This alone
should suffice to demonstrate how far he was at that time
from accepting and propounding some of the main tenets of
the so-called Jeffersonian democracy. But Virginia was not
yet ready for a change, the constitutional convention was
not called, and nothing had been done when Jefferson left the
State late in November, arriving at Annapolis on the twenty-
fourth.

Much to his disgust, he found that, after a fortnight, the
delegates from only six States had appealed and that it was
impossible to transact any serious business. The Treaty of
Commerce had been received and was referred to a committee
of which Jefferson was chairman, but a bare quorum was not
assembled until December 13, and on the twenty-third, accord-
ing to the “Autobiography”, it was necessary to send to sev-
eral governors a letter “stating the receipt of the definitive

144

THOMAS JEFFERSON

treaty ; that seven States only were in attendance, while nine
were necessary to its ratification.”

In the meantime Washington had come to Annapolis to re-
sign his commission, in circumstances which can scarcely have
been as impressive as is generally related, since the whole pro-
gram carefully laid out by Jefferson took place before a bare
majority of Congress. The rest of the month was spent in
discussing whether the treaty could be ratified by less than nine
states. It soon appeared that “ there now remained but scanty
sixty-seven days for the ratification, for its passage across the
Atlantic and its exchange. There was no hope of our soon
having nine States present ; in fact that this was the ultimate
point of time to which we could venture to wait ; that if the
ratification was not in Paris by the time stipulated, the treaty
would become void . . . ” — On January 13, delegates from
Connecticut attended, and the next day a delegate from Caro-
lina having arrived, “the treaty was ratified without a dis-
senting vote.”

This was for Jefierson a most profitable experience. As
chairman of the committee, he had to familiarize himself with
questions of foreign policies and foreign commerce. He had
also to put aside whatever remnants of sectionalism and pro-
vincialism he unconsciously retained and he realized that
“Those United States being by their constitution consolidated
into one federal republic, they be considered in all such trea-
ties & in every case arising under them as one nation under the
principles of the Federal Constitution.” ^

The same principle is reasserted more strongly in the “Draft
for proclamation announcing ratification of definitive treaties”,
in which all the good citizens of the United States are enjoined
to reverence “those stipulations entered into on their behalf
imder the authority of that federal (moral, political and legal

^ “Report on letters from the Ministers in Paris.” December 20, 1783. Ford, III,

355 -

A STATESMAN’S APPRENTICESHIP 145

bond) whereby they are called, by which their existence as an
independent people is bound up together, and is known and
acknowledged by the nations of the world.” ^

On January 16, Jefferson wrote to Governor Harrison enu-
merating the important objects before Congress :

I . Authorizing our Foreign minister to enter into treaties of alli-
ance and commerce with the several nations who have deserved it ;
2. Arranging the domestic administration ; 3. Establishing arsenals
& ports on our frontiers; 4. Disposing of Western Territory;
5. Treaties of peace and purchase with the Indians ; 6. Money.

A full program, requiring for the adoption of any measure
the concurrence of nine States, while barely nine were present,
seven of which were represented only by two members each ;
“any of these fourteen gentlemen differing from the rest would
stay the proceedings”, and it seemed very doubtful whether
anything could be achieved during the session.

This brought home to Jefferson the fact that the concentra-
tion of the executive functions in Congress was an obstacle to
carrying out effectively the business of the Confederation, and
he thought it his duty to point out this defect in his “draft of
the report on a committee of the States”, January 30, 1784.
It was a lengthy report, not very accurately summed up in the
“Autobiography”, authorizing a permanent Committee of
the States to act as executive during the recess of Congress,
and enumerating very minutely the powers that such a com-
mittee might exercise and those from which it would be ex-
cluded. The plan as adopted was somewhat different and it
was resolved: “That the Committee should possess all the
powers which may he exercised by the seven States in Con-
gress assembled”, except concerning foreign relations.

Jefferson recalled in the “Autobiography” that during the
following recess the committee quarrelled, split into two parties,

* Ford, III, 377.

146 THOMASJEFFERSON

“abandoned their posts, and left the government without any
visible head, until the next meeting of Congress.” He signifi-
cantly added: “We have since seen the same thing take
place in the Directory of France ; and I believe it will forever
take place in any executive consisting of a plurality. Our
plan, — best, I believe, — combines wisdom and practicality ;
by providing a plurality of Counsellors, but a single Arbiter
for ultimate decision.” This conclusion was already reached
in 1784, not following a logical reasoning, or because of an in-
nate need of unity, but as a result of experience. Very early
in his life Jefferson became convinced that the country could
not be properly administered unless the executive powers were
concentrated in one responsible person, with powers strictly
defined, but left free to act and to act rapidly within that
field. This explains, among other things, not only Jefferson’s
approval of the powers granted to the Executive under the
Constitution, but also his conduct during his two terms as
President.

He soon had an opportimity to study the financial problems
of the Confederation, when a “grand Committee of Con-
gress” was appointed to take up the Federal expenses for the
current year, inclusive of articles of interest on the public debts
foreign and domestic.” ^ He presented on March 22 a “Re-
port on the Arrears of Interest”, in which were carefully tabu-
lated not only the interest on sums due on account of the na-
tional debts but an estimate of the expenses for the year 1784, —
in other words a budget. An outgrowth of the work assigned
to the Committee was the eslablishment of a money unit, and of
a coinage for the United States. The report of Jefferson re-
tained some of the essential provisions of the proposal drawn
up by the “Financier of the U. S.” (Robert Morris, assisted by
Governor Morris), and Jefferson himself did not claim so much
originality for it as has been given him by some of his biog-

' February i, 1784. Ford, in, 393.

A STATESMAN’S APPRENTICESHIP 147

raphers. The report of the financier proposed that the new
coins “should be in decimal proportions to one another”, and
this was retained. On the other hand, Morris had proposed as
a unit “the 1440th part of a dollar”, after taking into considera-
tion the old currencies, “alt of which this unit measures with-
out leaving a fraction.” Jefferson pointed out that, although
theoretically perfect, the unit was much too complicated
and too small, and he maintained that the unit should be
the Spanish dollar “a known coin, and the most familiar
of all to the minds of the people.” ... “It is already
adopted from South to North,” he added, “has identified our
currency, and therefore happily offers itself as a Unit already
introduced.”

In spite of the financier’s opposition, the plan as amended
by Jefferson was finally adopted and still constitutes the essen-
tial foundation of the American monetary system. To the
student of psychology this incident affords another illustration
of Jefferson’s practical-mindedness. Having to choose be-
tween two solutions, one mathematically perfect, and another
one simply regulating and organizing what already existed,
he did not hesitate a minute and practical considerations pre-
vailed at once in his mind.

In the meantime he was working on one of his most important
State papers. Randall called attention to it and P. L. Ford
maintained that “next to the Declaration of Independence (if
indeed standing second to that) this document ranks in his-
torical importance of all those drawn by Jefferson ; and, but for
its being superseded by the ‘Ordinance of 1787’, would rank
among all American state papers immediately after the Na-
tional Constitution.” ^ Yet it does not seem that its value is
generally recognized and it is but seldom listed as one of the
outstanding achievements of Jefferson. For reasons that will
shortly appear, Jefferson himself neglected to mention it in his

^ Ford, in, p. 430.

148 THOMAS JEFFERSON

“Autobiography.” It is a capital document by wliich to under-
stand the growth of the Jeffersonian doctrme.

First of all, it resolved that “so much of the territory ceded
or to be ceded by individual States to the United States as is
already purchased or shall be purchased of the Indian mhabit-
ants & offered for sale by Congress, shall be divided into dis-
tinct states.” Which simply meant that the westward growth
of the countiy, instead of being left to the initiative of the indi-
vidual States, was placed under the segis of the Confederation
and thus became a matter of national importance and signifi-
cance. It provided for a practically unlimited expansion of
the United States by the establishment of States analogous
to the already existing Confederacy. It also msisted strongly
that all such territory be connected as closely as possible with
the already existing Union. Settlers in any of the territories
thus organized, had authority to establish a temporary govern-
ment, adopting with due modification the constitution and laws
of any of the original States. A permanent government was
to be established in any State as soon as it shordd have acquired
a population of twenty thousand free Inhabitants, provided,
and here we probably have the most important provisions :

I. That they shall forever remain a part of this confederacy of
the United States of America. 2. That in their persons, property
and territory they shall be subject to the Government of the United
States in Congress assembled & to the articles of confederation. . . .
4. That their respective Governments shall be in republican forms
and shall admit no person to be a citizen who holds any hereditary
title. 5. That after the year 1800 of the Christian aera, there shall
he neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in any of the said states

Finally, “whenever any of the said States shall have, of free
inhabitants, as many as shah, then be in any one of the least
numerous, of the thirteen original States, such State will be
admitted by it’s delegates into the Congress of the United
States on an equal footing with the said United States.”

A STATESMAN’S APPRENTICESHIP 149

This report, submitted March i, recommitted to the com-
mittee March 17, was considered again by Congress on April
19, 21, 23, and adopted after amendment by every State except
one. But the amendment took the teeth out of the report,
since the clause referring to slavery was struck out, as well as
that concerning the admission of persons holding hereditary
titles. Other provisions concerning the names to be given to
the new States were also eliminated. The scholar reappeared
in these suggestions. If Jefferson’s original motion had been
accepted, the present State of Michigan would wear the name
of Chersonesus and on the map of the United States would
appear such designations as Mdropotaviia, Polypotamia, and
PiUsipia}

Finally Jefferson intended to complete the organization and
expansion of the United States with “An ordinance establish-
ing a Land Office” for the United States “to give sure title to
the settlers and determine the division and subdivision into
lots” which was defeated, an entirely new ordinance being
adopted April 26, 1785.^

The most striking feature of all these bills was the eagerness
of Jefferson to consolidate the Union and to strengthen Federal
bonds. With a common monetary^ unit, common interest in a
large territory just acquired by cession from Virginia, one more
thing remained to be settled : the organization of permanent
relations with foreign nations, that is to say, the conclusion
of commercial treaties.

It had appeared very soon to Jefferson that if such treaties
were to be concluded it was desirable to adopt a working policy
outlined in his “Resolves on European Treaties.” “ To have
foreign plenipotentiaries come to the United States, discuss
with the badly organized body called the Continental Congress,
whose members would have to report to their legislatures and

* See Ford, III, 407 and 429 “ Ihd , III, 476.

® March, 1784 Tbid, III, p 428

after intemainable delays accept or reject the proposal, was an
impossible procedure. This distrust of Congress was amply
justified at the time, and one may wonder whether satisfactory
treaties could ever have been concluded under the supervision
of Congress; Jefferson therefore proposed that ministers
be sent to Europe to negotiate with the old and established
nations, who could not be expected to cross the Atlantic.

On May 7, Congress agreed on Instructions to the Ministers
Plenipotentiary appointed to negotiate treaties of Commerce with
the European Nations. Once more it was proclaimed :

“That these United Sates be considered in all such treaties,
and in every case arising under them, as one nation, upon the
principle of the Federal constitution.”

It was also deemed “advantageous that treaties be con-
cluded with Russia, the Court of Vienna, Prussia, Denmark,
Saxony, Hamburg, Great Britain, Spain, Portugal, Genoa,
Tuscany, Rome, Naples, Venice, Sardinia and the Ottoman
Porte. That treaties of amity and commerce be entered into
with Morocco, and the Regencies of Algiers, Tunis and Tripoli.
To have supplementary treaties with France, the United
Netherlands and Sweden in order to incorporate the new policies
of the United States.”

The plan of treaties contained some remarkable provisions ;
they were clear departures, not from the theory of mtemational
law and droit des gens, as Jefferson had found it in the authorities
consulted, but from the actual policy of the European nations.

Thus it was proposed that in case of war between the two
contracting parties,

The merchants of either country, then residing in the other shall
be allowed to remain nine months to collect their debts and settle
their affairs, and may depart freely, carrying off all their effects,
without molestation or hinderance, and all fishermen, all cultivators
of the earth, and all artisans or manufacturers, unarmed and inhabit-
ing unfortified towns, villages or places, who labor for the common

A STATESMAN’S APPRENTICESHIP 151

subsistence and benebt oi mankind, and peaceably iollo'w tbeit
respective emplo3mients, shall be allowed to continue the same.

That “neither of the contracting powers shall grant or issue
any commission to any private armed vessels, empowering
them to take or destroy such trading ships, or interrupt such
commerce.”

In case of war with another nation, “no merchandize here-
tofore called contraband, such as arms, ammunition and mili-
tary stores of all kinds, . . . shall, on any account, be deemed
contraband, so as to mduce confiscation, and a loss of prop-
erty to individuals.” The right to detain vessels carrying such
goods a reasonable length of time was granted, as well as the
right not to seize, but “to purchase” military stores with a
reasonable compensation to the proprietors; in all cases the
owners of the ships delayed were to receive a compensation.
But all vessels not carrying contraband were to be entirely
free, adding that a blockade in order to be recognized had to
be effectual, but even in that case “no vessel of the party who
is not engaged in the said war, shall be stopped without a
material and well-grounded cause.”

Besides these general provisions, it was recommended that
“each party shall have a right to carry their own produce,
manufactures, and merchandise in their own bottoms to the
ports of the others, and thence the produce and merchandise
of the other, paying, in both cases, such duties only as are paid
by the most favored nations.”

A paragraph was intended specially for the commerce with
the West Indies, “desiring that a direct and similar inter-
course be admitted between the United States and possessions
of the nations holding territorial possessions in America.”

Finally, as Jefferson as well as his contemporaries were
already fearful of seeing any influx of foreigners settle in tlieir
country and dominate the infant government, it was stipu-
lated that no right be accorded to aliens to hold real property

iSt2 THOMAS JEFFERSON

within these States, this being “utterly inadmissible by their
several laws and policy.”

From the European point of view many things were inad-
missible in the plan of treaties. To request the nations of the
Old World not only to abandon privateering, but to relinquish
their definitions of contraband and their commercial monopolies
with their own colonies, was something which must have ap-
peared as the wild dream of a people unexperienced in the
handling of foreign relations. As a matter of fact, the treaties
were never signed. But if the principles formulated by Jeffer-
son were not accepted by the European powers, they remained
nevertheless an essential part of the foreign policy of the United
States.

On the very day the “Instructions” were adopted, Jefferson
was appointed Minister Plenipotentiary to “negotiate treaties
of commerce with foreign nations in conjunction with Mr.
John Adams and Dr. Franklin.” No man in Congress was
better qualified for such a mission. His work for two years on
several important committees had acquainted him with the
main problems of the Union. He had demonstrated his ability
to present clear reports on the most intricate questions. He
had completed his apprenticeship of men and thmgsj but it
may be wondered whether the delegates who recommended
his appointment were not impelled by ulterior motives. The
stand taken by Jefferson on slavery had made him decidedly
unpopular with the Southern delegates. He had opposed the
original statutes of the Order of Cincinnati, in which he saw the
beginnings of a new aristocracy. He had made enemies as well
as friends and could write to Washington that an experience
of twenty years had taught him “that few friendships stand
this test, & that public assemblies, where everyone is free to
act & to speak, are the most powerful looseners of private
friendship.” The petty discussions in Congress, the long
speeches he had to Usten to, the quibbling, lack of initiative

A STATESMAN’S APPRENTICESHIP 153

and lack of national spirit of the delegates had t^horoughly dis-
gusted him. Before receiving his appointment he had already
repented of his return to public life and had signified his in-
tention of going back to his beloved Monticello.

I have determined — he wrote to Washington — to take no
active part in this or anything else, which may lead to altercation,
or disturb that quiet & tranquillity of mint! to which I consign the
remaining portion of my life. I have been thrown back by events
on a stage where I had never more thought to appear. It is but for a
time, however, & as a day laborer, free to withdraw, or be with-
drawn at will.^

He seized with eagerness the opportunity of visiting older
civilizations and enjoying a change of scenes. Havmg hastily
cancelled his order for printing a few copies of the “Notes on
Virginia”, he at once made preparations for his departure.

The new plenipotentiary decided to take with him his older
daughter Martha, then in Philadelphia at Mrs. Hopkinson’s,
and to leave the two younger ones with their maternal aunt,
Mrs. Eppes, in Virginia. William Short, his “ d/eae ” and friend,
accompanied him as private secretary and Colonel David Hum-
phreys as secretary of the legation.^ From Philadelphia he
went to Boston, visiting Connecticut, Rhode Island, and the
principal towns on his way, in order to acquire "what knowledge
he could of their commerce and other circumstances.” He
sailed from Boston on the Ceres, Captain Sainte-Barbe, bound
to Cowes.

Jefferson was then forty-one years old. He knew life and
men and had no illusions ; he had experienced happiness and
sorrow; he had had moments of exaltation, of hot patriotic
fever ; he had occupied the front of the stage in several cir-
cumstances never to be forgotten ; he had aroused enmities and
made devoted and faithful friends, among them Monroe, Madi-

1 To George Washington, April i6, 1784. Ford, III, 466 and 470.

’ To James Madison, February 30, 1784. Ibid., Ill, 403.

154 THOMAS JEFFERSON

son, and Short whom he was taking along with him. But
neither his disappointments nor his sorrows had made him a
misanthrope. Not an orator, he Irked to talk, and he could
not live without society. The tall spare man in black was
no longer able to feel his heart moved by the early emotions
of his youth. Next to Washington, who remained in America,
and to Doctor Franklin, a debonair patriarch, he was the most
famous national figure of America. None was better qualified
by his former life and studies to represent America and to speak
for his country. Whatever sectionalism he may have had m
him had disappeared in these last two years of Congress, when
he had striven so strenuously to make the Union an actual
fact and to consolidate the loose Federal fabric, for only there
could men “See the affairs of the Confederacy from a high
ground; they learn the importance of the Union & befriend
federal measures when they return. Those who never come
here, see our affairs insulated, pursue a system of jealousy
and self interest, and distract the Union as much as they can.”

Of Europe he knew little, except what he had been able to
absorb from books. It was a country of great artistic pro-
ductivity, of enviable social life. Towards England he was
not particularly attracted ; towards Frapce he felt much more
favorably inclined. He had met many Frenchmen; some of
them already had become his close friends, two particularly,
the Chevalier de Chastellux and especially the youthful, im-
pulsive, and charming Lafayette, who in a parting note had
asked him to consider his house as his and to take the little
motherless girl to Madame de Lafayette. He knew he would
not be without friends, without society, that he would have
an unique chance to meet the best minds of Europe. This
practical American, so little given to the "Jo-ie de vivre” and
without abandon, wanted primarily to increase his knowledge,
to gather facts, to make comparisons. He had retained the
taste for society, the good breeding, the polite manners, the

A STATESMAN’S APPRENTICESHIP 155

artistic tendencies of the Virginian, but in him the American
was already fully grown. He felt also that he had a certain
mission and intended to fulfill it ; it was to convey to the Euro-
pean statesmen whose wiles he distrusted the impression that
the United States existed as a country, that they did not form
a loose and temporary confederation of States, but a nation to
be reckoned with and respected. His country was no longer his
native Virginia alone ; he was thinking nationally and not
sectionally. For the French Jefferson was already a great
American figure ; he was going to embody the best there was
in the newly constituted Union.

BOOK THREE

An American View of Europe

CHAPTER I

SOCIETY AND TRAVEL

The Ceres reached Portsmouth nineteen days after leaving
Boston, a remarkably swift passage, without incident, except
for three days spent in fishing on the Banks of Newfoundland,
while the ship was becalmed. Jefferson and his companions
were delayed a week in Portsmouth by Martha’s slight illness,
and then went directly to Paris, where he arrived on August 6,
1784. Jefferson was to remain in France till the faU of 1789
— five years crowded with pleasures, social duties, political
duties, and hard work. His activities were so varied and his
interests so diversified that it is no longer possible to foUow any
chronological order; we must establish arbitrary divisions,
though Jefferson passed at aU times from one subject to another
and was incessantly busy with undertakings and plans truly
encyclopedic.

First of all, he had to find quarters. He had put up at the
H6tel d’Orleans, Rue des Petits Augustins, then he had rented
“H6tel TSte-Bout, cul-de-sac TSte-Bout”, and a year later
moved to a house belonging to M. le Comte de I’Avongeac “at
the corner of the Grande Route des Champs Elys^es and Rue
Neuve de Berry”, where he continued to live as long as he re-
mained in Paris. His secretary Short and Colonel Humphreys,
secretary to the legation, lived with him. It was “a very ele-
gant house, even for Paris, with an extensive garden, court and
outbuildings, in the handsomest style,”

Of Jefferson’s first impressions after landing in France we
imfortunately know nothing. Not until a full year had elapsed
did he express his personal views in writing. Although he de-

i6o THOMAS JEFFERSON

ploied the wretched condition of the larger mass of the people,
he had already come to the conclusion, probably correct, that
life in Paris was more pleasant than anywhere else on earth :
“The roughnesses of the human mind are so thoroughly rubbed
off with them, that it seems as if one might glide through a
whole life without a jostle.” * It was some time, however, before
he felt entirely at home in Parisian society. He was somewhat
handicapped and humiliated at first because of lack of means
at the disposal of the Minister of the United States for main-
taining his rank. In his report on the reduction of the civil list
(March 5, 1784), Jefferson, animated with a fine republican
zeal, had fixed the compensation of American representatives
abroad at ten thousand dollars. Now that he was in Paris he
found the allowance very inadequate, A proud Virginian, ac-
customed to entertain generously, he considered hospitality an
imperious duty as well as a pleasure, and his letters to Con-
gress are filled with complaints on the niggardliness of his
resources. However, he procured a good French cook in the
person of the worthy Petit, who became quite attached to him,
and wrote for him recipes for “ poulet en casserole ” and “ cafe a
lafrangaise.” He informed himself concerning the best French
wines, some of which he already knew, and made a thorough
and scientific study of the different vintages, recording the
result of his observations in unpublished notes. Nor was he
so selfish as to keep aU his knowledge to himself. Adams and
Washington used his good offices to keep their cellars well
stocked in champagne and sauternes. For them and for Madi-
son he subscribed to “L’ Encyclopedic Methodique”, he bought
new French books, engrardngs, plaster casts, and medals, and
his willingness to oblige his friends and to go shopping for them
was so well known that Mrs, Adams asked him to buy for her
daughter “two pairs of corsets”, much to his distress, since she
had omitted to send him the measure. For Mrs. Bingham he

' To Mrs. Trist, Paris, August iS, 1785. "Domestic Life”, 79,

SOCIETY AND TRAVEL i6i

filled boxes with “ caps and bonnets” ; lor Madison he bought
a pocket telescope, a walking stick, a chemical box, for poor
little Polly who had remained with her aunt at Eppington
“sashes ” and Parisian dolls.

Through Franklin, Jefferson was introduced to Madame
d’Houdetot, who had unlimited admiration for a man who
not only was an American and a philosopher, but who also
knew the names of American plants and trees much more
thoroughly than her dear Doctor. He obtained for her seeds,
bulbs, and trees to be planted in the park of Sannois.^ Through
Franklin also he met Madame Helvetius and her two abb6s,
who always wrote jointly to Jefferson.® At her house, he saw
Cabanis, then a very young man, Destutt de Tracy and abbe
Morellet. He attended concerts at Madame d’Houdetot’s
brother’s house, but above all he was attracted by Lafayette’s
family and friends. It was large enough for a man of more
leisure and more worldly tendencies. There was the Marquis
himself and his charming wife, who befriended Martha and
wrote Jefferson several notes filled with that delightful eight-
eenth-century “ semibilite” and amiability of which we have
lost the secret. There was also Madame de Tesse, Lafayette’s
cousin, who was, however, considerably older than the Mar-
quis and whom he called “aunt.” Jefferson saw her in Paris
and visited her often at Chaville, where Short stayed for weeks
at a time, perfecting himself in the French language and the
ways of French society. She loved trees, good paintings, fine
buildings, statues, and music, and did much to educate Jeffer-
son’s taste in these matters. Not mentioned by his biog-
raphers, Madame de Corny played a not inconsiderable part
in Jefferson’s sentimental life. Young, pretty, witty, and
married to a husband much older than herself, she enjoyed
Jefferson’s company, took with him many walks in the Bois de

' See G. Chinard, “Les Amitifes amWcaines de Madame d’Houdetot.” Paiis, 1923,

^ May 24, 1785, November 12, 1785, etc. Maasachusetta Hiatorical Society.

i 62 THOMAS JEFFERSON

Boulogne and perhaps, secretly, found him too scrupulously
polite and too respectful^ There were also several other
women, Madame de Tott, a distinguished painter, the vivacious
and charming Lucy Paradise, Comtesse Barziza, a real “ enfant
terrible ”, irresponsible, outspoken, who in her letters to Jeffer-
son listed all the scandals of the days.^ And one must not
forget among Jefferson’s feminine acquaintances the old Com-
tesse de la Rochefoucauld, dignified, sarcastic, a terrible bore
at times, whom on many occasions he vainly tried to avoid.

But when all is told, it does not appear that the circle of
Jefferson’s friends was ever very large. During his first year
in Paris he did his best to keep in the background. To Frank-
lin he owed deference, because of his age and the position of the
Doctor as the only accredited representative to the Court of
Versailles. Adams, the other plenipotentiary, was older than
Jefferson, who on every occasion insisted that his colleagues
should have precedence over him. A good listener, he was
much more reserved than Franklin and always remained some-
what self-conscious when he spoke or wrote French. If the
Doctor spoke French as badly as he wrote it, his conversation
must have been an extraordinary jargon ; but Jefferson was
too sensitive and had too much amoxir-propre to venture upon
long discussions and conversations with people he did not know
intimately. Most of his French letters were written by Short,
who became rapidly a master of the language, and we may pre-
sume that Jefferson never really felt at home in a purely French
circle.

This was true at least of his first year in Paris, He had many
fits of despondency and wondered at times whether he was not
too old to accustom himself to strange people and to strange
manners. He often experienced the usual longing of the trav-

' CMoard, “Ttois Amitifis Fianjaises de Jefferson.” Paris, 1927.

* Most of her letters to Jefferson are in the Jefferson Coolidge Collection of tha
Massachusetts Historical Society.

SOCIETY AND TRAVEL 163

eler for his native land ; “I am now of an age which does not
easily accommodate itself to new modes of living and new man-
ners,” he wrote to Baron Geismer, the former prisoner of
Charlottesville ; “and I am savage enough to prefer the woods,
the wilds and independence of Monticello, to all the brilliant
pleasures of this gay capital. I shall therefore, rejoin myself
to my native country with new attachments and exaggerated
esteem for its advantages. ” ^ It was probably on these occa-
sions that he took refuge in the most silent of all places, a Car-
thusian monastery, a very strange abode for one who has been
accused of being a fierce anti-clerical :

He also had rooms in the Carthusian Monastery on Mount
Calvary ; the boarders, of whom I think there were forty, carried
their own servants, and took their breakfasts in their own rooms.
They assembled to dinner only. They had the privilege of walking
in the gardens, but as it was a hermitage, it was against the rules of
the house for any voices to be heard outside of their own rooms,
hence the most profound silence. The author of “Anarcharsis”
was a boarder at the time, and many others who had reasons for a
temporary retirement from the world. Whenever he had a press
of business, he was in the habit of taking his papers and going to the
hermitage, where he spent sometimes a week or more till he had
finished his work. The hermits visited him occasionally in Paris,
and the Superior made him a present of an ivory broom that was
turned by one of the brothers.*

From time to time this same mood recurred :

I am burning the candle of life without present pleasure or future
object — he wrote to Mrs. Trist in 1786. — A dozen or twenty
years ago this scene would have amused me ; but I am past the age
for changing habits. I take all the fault on myself, as it is impossible
to be among a people who wish more to make one happy — a people
of the very best character it is possible for one to have. We have
no idea in America of the real French character.*

1 April 6, 1785. “Domestic Life”, p. 80.

’ Diary of Martha. Ibid., p. 74.

^ Ibid., p. 84.

i64 THOMAS JEFFERSON

Not foreign to this despondency was the bad news that came
from America. His youngest daughter Lucy died in the fall
of 1784 and he was not satisfied until he had his remaining
daughter near him in Paris, and Mary, familiarly called Polly,
had joined her sister in the best convent of the French capital.

Between social duties and pleasures, dinners at the house of
Ijafayette, meetings of the Committees of Commerce, inter-
views with Vergennes, preparation of long letters to be sent
home to keep his Government informed of the situation in
Europe, correction of the proofs of the “Notes on Virginia”,
intendews with former French volunteers clamoring for their
back pay, visits to shops and factories, Jefferson was a very
busy man indeed. But exacting as his occupations were, he
found time to escape from Paris on three different occasions
to see something of France and Europe. In 1786 he journeyed
to England, traveled in France and Italy in the spring of the
following year, and visited Holland and the Rhine shortly
before leaving for home. The diaries he kept during these trips
are both revealing and disappointing. They demonstrate how
little of European culture had penetrated his American mind,
how carefully he preserved himself from the contammation of
European manners and ways of thinking. In some respects
it must be confessed that Jefferson remained very narrow and
provincial, and almost a Philistine in liis outlook.

The most damning document is the outline he made for
Rutledge and Shippen on June 3, 1788, though in some respects
it shows good judgment, as when Jefferson recommends “not
to judge of the manners of the people from the people you will
naturally see the most of ; tavern keepers, valets de place, and
postillions.” — “These are the hackneyed rascals of every coun-
try. Of course they must never be considered when we calcu-
late the national character.” He manifested the same good
sense in recommending always to ask for the vin du pays when
traveling. But the worst comes in his enumeration of the

SOCIETY AND TRAVEL 165

“Objects of Attention for an American.” It has to be read
to be believed and should be transcribed here almost in full :

I. Agriculture. Everything belonging to this art, and whatever
has a near relation to it. . . . 2. Mechanical arts, so far as they
respect things necessary in America, and inconvenient to be trans-
ported thither ready-made, such as forges, stone quarries, boat
bridges, etc. 3. Lighter mechanical arts, and manufactures. Some
of these will be worth a superficial view ; but circumstances render-
ing it impossible that America should become a manufacturing
country during the time of any man now living, it would be a waste
of attention to examine these minutely. 4. Gardens peculiarly
worth the attention of an American, because it is the country of
all others where the noblest gardens may be made without ex-
pense. ... 5. Architecture worth a great attention. As we
double our numbers every twenty years, we must double our
houses. ... It is, then, among the most important arts; it is
desirable to introduce taste into an art which shows so much.
6. Painting, Statuary. Too expensive for the stale of wealth
among us. It would be useless, therefore, and preposterous, for us
to make ourselves connoisseurs in those arts. They are worth
seeing, but not studying. 7. Politics of each country, well worth
studying so far as respects internal affairs. Examine their influence
on the happiness of the people. Take every possible occasion for
entering into the houses of the laborers, and especially at the moment
of their repast ; see what they eat, how they are clothed, whether
they are obliged to work too hard. ... 8. Courts. To be seen
as you would see the tower of London or menagerie of Versailles
with their lions, tigers, hyenas, and other beasts of prey, standing
in the same relation to their fellows. . . . Their manners, could
you ape them, would not make you beloved in your own country,
nor would they improve it could you introduce them there to the
exclusion of that honest simplicity now prevailing in America, and
worthy of being cherished.

The man who wi'ote these lines was certainly not denational-
ized ; the emancipated Virginian had unconsciously retained a

i66 THOMAS JEFFERSON

puritanical distrust of purely aesthetic enjoyments. He seems
to have taken a sort of wicked pleasure in denying himself the
disinterested joys of the artist and philosopher and his travels
in Europe were no “sentimental journey.” It cannot even be
maintained that the views expressed in the letter to Shippen
were a paradox and that he felt free to enjoy the pleasures from
which he strove to protect his fellow countrymen. Most re-
vealing in this respect is the following passage from a letter
written to Lafayette, when he was traveling along the Riviera ;

In the great cities I go to see, what travellers think alone worthy
of being seen ; but I make a job of it, and generally gulp it all down
in a day. On the other hand, I am never satished with rambling
through the fields and farms, examining the culture and cultivators,
with a degree of curiosity which makes some take me to be a fool,
and others to be much wiser than I am.'

He seems to have been dominated by the same utilitarian
preoccupations during his English journey. There he noted
carefully aU the peculiarities of English gardens, visiting all
the show places with Whateley’s book on gardening in his
pocket ; “ My inquiries, ” he himself said, “were directed chiefly
to such practical things as might enable me to estimate the
expense of making and maintaining a garden in that style.”
This is why the only thing worth noticing at Kew was an Archi-
medes screw for raising water, of which he made a sketch. His
conclusions were summed up in a letter to John Page after he
came back to Paris. England had totally disappointed him.
The “pleasure gardens”, to be sure, went far beyond his ideas,
but the city of London, though handsomer than Paris, was not
so handsome as Philadelphia: “Their architecture is in the
most wretched style I ever saw, not meaning to except America,
where it is bad, not even Virginia, where it is worse than in any
other part of America which I have seen.” On the other hand,

April II, 1787. JeSerson Papers, Library of Congress.

SOCIETY AND TRAVEL 167

the mechanical arts were carried to a wonderful perfection,
but he took no joy in visiting manufactures and shops, since
the view reminded him that the frivolity of his fellow country-
men made them import many articles from London and thus
pay tribute to a foreign nationd
When he left Paris for the South of France he was in no
more amiable mood. It was his first real contact with the
French countryside and he was shocked beyond words at the
sight of the first villages he passed through from Sens to Ver-
manton. He could not understand why the French peasants
insisted on living close together in villages instead of building
their houses on the grounds they cultivated. He racked his
brains for an explanation and could find no better one than to
suppose that they were “collected by that dogma of their
religion which makes them believe, that to keep the Creator in
good humor with His own works, they must mumble a mass
every day.” The people were iUy clothed ; the sight of women
and children carrying heavy burdens and laboring with the hoe
made the Virginian slave-owner conclude that “in a civilized
country, men never expose their wives and children to labor
above their force and sex, as long as their own labor can pro-
tect them from it.” But he nowhere expressed any emotional
distress nor heartfelt sympathy for these poor wretches and
concluded that if there were no beggars it was probably an effect
of the police.®

On the other hand, he noted every detail of the fabrication
of Burgundy wine, enumerated the different vintages, the
cost of casks, bottles, methods of transportation and market-
ing, the price of “ww ordinaire", of oil, butter, cattle, the culti-
vation of olive trees and fig trees and capers. Monuments are
described with a mathematical eye, many small points noted,
columns described, ornaments studied, but the only personal

‘ May 4, 1786 Memorial Edition, V, 303.

Hbii., XVII, IS 3 .

i68

THOMAS JEFFERSON

impression elicited by Arles is that “The principal monument
here, is an amphitheatre, the external portico of which is toler-
ably complete.”

What is true of France is even more true of Italy. At Milan
the cathedral is not even mentioned, but “the salon of the Casa
Belgiosa is superior to anything I have ever seen.” And he
adds immediately, “The mixture called Scaiola, of which they
make their walls and floors, is so like the finest marble as to be
scarcely distinguishable from it.” Pages are given to the
fabrication of Parmesan cheese. Once, however, in walking
along the shore from Louano to Alberga, he could not resist the
enchantment of the landscape. There he noted the remarkable
coloration of the Mediterranean and was puzzled by it, but he
also added, let it be marked to his credit ;

If any person wished to retire from his acquaintances, to live
absolutely unknown, and yet in the midst of physical enjoyments,
it should be in some of the little villages of this coast, where air,
water and earth concur to offer what each has most precious. Here
are nightingales, beccaficas, ortolans, pheasants, partridges, quails,
a superb climate, and the power of changing it from summer to
winter at any moment, by ascending the mountains. The earth
furnishes wine, oil, figs, oranges, and every production of the garden,
in every season. The sea yields lobsters, crabs, oysters, thunny, sar-
dines, anchovies etc. Ortolans sell at this time at thirty sous,
equal to one shilling sterling, the dozen.

A queer mixture of suppressed artistic emotions and avowed
culmary preoccupations. Shades of Rousseau and Words-
worth, to mention the nightingale and the ortolans in one
breath [ But one thing at least we must be thankful for is his
lack of pretence and conventional admiration. It is, after all,
refreshing to find a traveler who does not copy from his guide-
book and does not fafl. into raptures and worked-up ecstasies.
He came back through “Luc, Brignoiles, Avignon, Vaucluse”,
simply noting that “there are fine trout in the stream of Vau-

SOCIETY AND TRAVEL 169

cluse and the valley abounds particularly with nightingales.”
He saw Nimes, Montpellier, Frontignan, where he discussed
the manufacture and price of wine ; he passed through Car-
cassonne and was much interested in the canal and "the carp
caught there ’ ’ , but did not mention the walls ; he stayed several
days at Bordeaux, measured the remains of a Roman amphi-
theater and made a thorough study of the wines; “Chateau
Margau, La Tour de Segur, Hautbrion, Chateau de la Fite,
Pontac, Sauternes, Barsac.” He visited Nantes, Rennes,
Angers, Tours, and ascertained the truth of the allegations of
the famous “growth of shells unconnected with animal bodies”
mentioned by Voltaire and discussed in the “Notes on Vir-
ginia.” He saw Chantcloup and heard a nightingale there,
but was far more interested in “an ingenious contrivance to
hide the projecting steps of a stair-case.”

The same utilitarian preoccupation reappears most con-
spicuously in his “Memorandums on a Tour from Paris to Am-
sterdam, Strasburg, and back to Paris” (March, 1788). At
Amsterdam he studied the Dutch wheelbarrow, the canal to
raise ships over the Pampus, joists of houses, the aviary of
Mr. Ameshoff near Harlem ; he made a sketch of the Hope’s
House “of a capricious appearance yet a pleasant one” — an
architectural atrocity if ever there was one. At Dusseldorf
“the gallery of paintmgs is sublhne”, but equally interesting
is the hog of this country (Westphalia) “ of which the celebrated
ham is made which sells at eight and a half pence sterling the
pound.” If he saw the cathedral at Cologne he forbore to
mention it, but at Coblenz he had his first taste of the Moselle
wine. It would be cruel to reproduce his description of the
“clever ruin at Hanau, with the hermitage in which is a good
figure of a hermit in plaster, colored to the life, with a table
and a book before him, in the attitude of contemplation.”

And yet, when the worst is told, one may wonder whether
there would not be some unfairness in judging Jefferson merely

170 THOMAS JEFFERSON

from these memoranda. There he noted information for
which he foresaw some further use, interesting knowledge which
could be utilized at Monticello or for the benefit of his fellow
countrymen. How to plant and prune the vines and the olive
trees; how to make cheese and oil; how to introduce the
“St. Foin ”, new vegetables, new crops such as rice, new indus-
tries such as the silkworm and mulberry tree ; how to build a
house ; all this required exactness and precision and could
scarcely be trusted to memory. Pleasant impressions of travel
on the contrary, could always be evoked through the imagina-
tion and would lose very little of their charm and value with
time. Furthermore to put down these impressions in black and
white would have required a certain process of analysis entirely
foreign to Puritan consciousness, and a Puritan Jefferson had
remained in his speech and manners far more than he himself
believed. There was in these purely aesthetic pleasures some-
thing ready too personal to be indulged in, at least in writing.
Once, however, he did away with all the restraint imposed upon
him by education and the “habits of his country” ; it is in the
well-known letter written from Nimes to Madame de Tess6.
Parts of it at least, in all fairness to Jefferson, have to be quoted
here as a contrast to the dryness and objectiveness of the notes
on travel . . .

Here I am, Madam, gazing whole hours at the Maison Quarree,
like a lover at his mistress. . . . This is the second time I have
been in love since I left Paris. The first was with a Diana at the
ChS,teau de Laye-Epinaye in Beaujolais, a delicious morsel of
sculpture, by M. A. Slodtz. This, you wiU say, was m rule, to fall
in love with a female beauty ; but with a house, it is out of all prece-
dent. No, Madam, it is not without a precedent in my own history.
While in Paris, I was violently smitten with the H6tel de Sahn, and
used to go to the Tuileries almost daily to look at it. The loueuse
des chaises — inattentive to my passion — never had the complais-
ance to place a chair there, so that sitting on the parapet, and twist-

SOCIETY AND TRAVEL 171

ing my neck around to see the object of my admiration, I generally
leit with a torti-colli.

From Lyons to Nismes I have been nourished with the remains
of Roman grandeur. They have always brought you to my mind,
because I know your affection for whatever is Roman and noble.
At Vienna I thought of you. But I am glad you were not here ; for
you would have seen me more angry than, I hope, you will ever see
me. The Praetorian palace, as it is called — comparable, for its
fine proportions, to the Maison Quarree — defaced by the barbarians
who have converted it to its present purpose, its beautiful fluted
Corinthian columns cut out, in parts, to make space for Gothic
windows, and hewed down, in the residue, to the plane of the build-
ings, was enough, you must admit, to disturb my composure. At
Orange too, I thought of you. I was sure you had seen with pleasure
the sublime triumphal arch of Marius at the entrance of the city. I
went then to the Arenae. Would you believe. Madam, that in this
eighteenth century, in France, under the reign of Louis XVI, they
are at this moment pulling down the circular wall of this superb
remain, to pave a road? And that too, from a hill which is itself
en entire mass of stone, just as fit, and more accessible.’-

This is indeed a charming letter ; but why did he not write
more often in this vein ? Why did he send to Martha moraliz-
ing and edifying letters when he was traveling in Southern
France and Italy? His latent puritanism, as already shown,
may partly account for this reticence, but this came from a
deeper feeling. He had already protested in his “Notes on
Virginia” against the claim made by Europe to intellectual
supremacy. He realized, however, how powerful was the at-
traction of the great centers of European culture on young
America, and was afraid that the introduction of foreign arts,
foreign literature, foreign customs, and “mode” might cor-
rupt the very springs of American life. This blind admiration
of everything European constituted one of the greatest dan-
gers if America wished to develop on her own soil a civilization

1 Nismes, March so, 1787.

1/2

THOMAS JEFFERSON

o£ her own. Friends in Virginia had to be convinced that an
American youth, brought up on a strictly American diet, would
in nowise be inferior to most Europeans. If one insisted upon
sending a young man to Europe, the chances were that he would
learn nothing essential, that on the contrary he would lose
many of his native qualities and at any rate his native inno-
cence and purity of mind. This appears most conspicuously
in a letter written to J. B. Bannister, Junior, who had mani-
fested the intention of sending his son to Europe. There Jeffer-
son proceeded to denounce the features of European civiliza-
tion as vehemently as any Puritan preacher and with the same
frankness of expression. To enmnerate the disadvantages
of sending a youth to Europe “would require a volume”, so
he had to select a few. England is shortly disposed of: “If
he goes to England, he learns drinking, horse racing, and box-
ing,” for those are the peculiarities of English education. If
he goes to the continent he will acquire a fondness for luxury
and dissipation, he will contract a partiality for aristocracy
and monarchy ; he wiU soon be led to consider “fidelity to the
marriage bed as an ungentlemanly practice.” He will become
denationalized and recollecting “the voluptuary dress and
arts of the European women, will pity and despise the chaste
afiections and simplicity of those of his own country.” He will
return to America “a foreigner”, speaking and writing his own
tongue “like a foreigner”, and therefore unqualified to obtain
those distinctions, which eloquence of the pen and tongue en-
sures in a free country.” There can be only one conclusion
after such a fierce denunciation of Europe :

It appears to me, then, that an American, coming to Europe for
education, loses in his knowledge, in his morals, in his health, in his
habits, and in his happiness. I had entertained only doubts on this
head before I came to Europe : what I see and hear, since I came
here proves more than I had expected. Cast your eye over America :
who are the men of most learning, of most eloquence, most beloved

SOCIETY AND TRAVEL 173

by their countrymen and most trusted and promoted by them?
They are those who have been educated among them, and whose
manners, morals, and habits, are perfectly homogeneous with those
of the country.^

Very bold indeed would have been the American father who,
with such a frightful picture before his eyes, would have sent
his son to Europe,

Thus we are led to a very unexpected conclusion. There
is little doubt that Jefferson’s democratic theories were con-
firmed and clarified by his prolonged stay in Europe. But this
was not due to the lessons he received from the French philoso-
phers. He had gone to France under the misapprehension
that he would be considered there as a “savage from the moun-
tains of America” ; he had been dazzled at first by the splen-
dor of the old world, but he had soon overcome his admiration
and arrived at the conclusion that the game was not worth the
candle. Life in Paris was very pleasant, but some one had to
foot the bill, and the general fate of humanity was most de-
plorable in Europe. Such are the general impressions he sent
to his friend Bellini one year after arriving in Paris :

It is a true picture of that country to which they say we shall pass
hereafter ; and where we are to see God and his angels in splendor,
and crowds of the damned trampled rmder their feet. The great
mass of the people suffer under physical and moral oppression ; but
the condition of the great if more closely observed cannot compare
with the degree of happiness which is enjoyed in America. Among
them there is no family life, no conjugal love, no domestic happiness ;
intrigues of love occupy the young and those of ambition, the elder
part of the great.

Much, very much inferior, this, to the tranquil, permanent
felicity with which domestic society in America blesses most of
its inhabitants; leaving them to follow steadily those pur-

1 To J. Bannister, Junior, October is, 1785. Memorial Edition, V, 185.

174 THOMAS JEFFERSON

suits which health and reason approve, and rendering truly
delicious the intervals of those pursuits !

If one looks to another field, the situation is very similar.
“In science, the mass of the people are two centuries behind
ours ; their literature half a dozen years before us.” But that
is no serious inconvenience; books which are really good ac-
quire a reputation in that lapse of time and then pass over to
America, while poor hooks, controversial and uncertain knowl-
edge are naturally weeded out, so that America is not bothered
with that “swarm of nonsensical publications which issue daily
from a thousand presses, and perishes almost in issuing.”

On some points, however, Europeans have a decided su-
periority over the Americans ; they have more amiable man-
ners, they are more polite, more temperate, “they do not termi-
nate the most sociable meals by transforming themselves into
brutes. I have never seen a man drunk in France, even among
the lowest of the people,”

Finally in the arts there is no possible comparison :

Were I to proceed to tell you how much I enjoy their architecture,
sculpture, painting, music, I should want words. It is in these arts
they shine. The last of them particularly, is an enjoyment the
deprivation of which with us, cannot be calculated. I am almost
ready to say, it is the only thing which from my heart I envy them,
and which, in spite of all the authority of the Decalogue, I do covet.^

Nor are we to believe that in Jefferson’s opinion this was a
small achievement. Had he been more poetically inclined
he might have repeated the apostrophe of the old poet:
“France mother of all the arts.” But when all is told, the
fact remained that Europe had more to leam from America
than she could possibly give to the new nation, and thereupon
Jefferson started to “boost” his own country. Protesting
against a pseudo-discovery of an English wheelwright, he de-

1 To Bellini, September 30, 1785. Memorial Edition, V, 153.

SOCIETY AND TRAVEL 175

dared that the idea had been stolen from Doctor Franklin who
had observed it in Pennsylvania, Delaware and Jersey, and
the Jersey farmers might have borrowed it from Homer, “for
ours are the only farmers who can read Homer.” ^ Against
the architectural feats of the Europeans it is not unfair to claim
the superiority of American scenery, particularly of the Vir-
ginia marvels, such as the Natural Bridge, for “that kind of
pleasure surpasses much in my estimation, whatever I find
on this side of the Atlantic.”

At the end of his journey in France and Italy he conceded
that there are indeed in these countries “things worth our
imitation.” But he immediately added, “the accounts from
our country give me to believe that we are not in a condition
to hope of the imitation of anything good.” ^ In the meantime
it is better for the Americans to stay at home, for “ travelling
makes men wiser, but less happy”; and he wrote to Peter
Carr, whose education he had undertaken to direct : “There
is no place where your pursuit of knowledge will be so little
obstructed by foreign objects, as your own country, nor any,
wherein the virtues of the heart will be less exposed to be
weakened.” ^

1 To Cievecoeur, January ij, 1787. Memorial Edition, VI, 53.

To Carmichael, December 26, 1786.

® To Skipwith, July 28, 1787. Memorial Edition, VI, 187.

^ August 10, 1787. Ibid., VI, 262.

CHAPTER II

GALLO-AMERICAN COMMERCE AND THE
DEBT QUESTION

After Franklin's departure from Paris, Jefferson was left
officially in charge of the diplomatic relations of the United
States with the French Court. Adams was in London and
Carmichael in Madrid, and with them he exchanged extensive
communications. But the Paris legation was really the head-
quarters of American diplomacy, and the problems that came
up taxed the ingenuity and aU the intellectual resources Jeffer-
son could command.

Summing up his activities in Paris, be declared with too much
modesty in his "Autobiography” :

My duties, at Paris, were confined to a few objects ; the receipts
of our whale oUs, salted fish, and salt meat, on favorable terms ; the
admission of our rice on equal terms with that of Piedmont, Egypt
and the Levant ; a mitigation of the monopolies of our tobacco by the
Fanners-general, and a free admission of our productions into their
islands, were the principal commercial objects which required atten-
tion ; and on these occasions, I was powerfully aided by all the influ-
ence and the energies of the Marquis de La Fayette, who proved him-
self equally zealous for the friendship and welfare of both nations.”

As a matter of fact, Jefferson’s duties extended to many other
subjects, of which the most important and at any rate the most
perplexing may have been the settlement of the debt question.
This problem, as we shall presently see, haunted Jefferson’s
mind and was never separated by him from the purely com-
mercial questions. In many respects the situation then exist-
ing between the United States and France was very similar to

GALLO-AMERICAN COMMERCE 177

the present situation and certainly not easier to solve. An
estimate of Jefferson’s career that would leave out this par-
ticular side of his activities when in France, would necessarily
be incomplete, if not misleading, A large part of the minister’s
time was devoted, not to philosophical conversations with
Helv6tius’ friends but to obstinate, patient, and harassing
endeavor to obtain for his country commercial rights and even
privileges that would enable her to pay off her debt to Europe.
In spite of his affected scorn for figures and statistics, the
“philosopher” demonstrated an unusual business ability.

The tobacco trade in which the Southern States and par-
ticularly Virginia were vitallyintercstedwasat that time entirely
in the hands of the Farmers-general, whose monopoly was not
administered to the best interests of either the American growers
or the French consumers. Being closely allied with some of
the prominent economists and entirely in sympathy with their
views, Lafayette was naturally against the farming of taxes on
tobacco. But as he realized that there was very little hope of
doing away entirely with the system, he contented himself at
first with employing his best efforts to facilitate the direct
importation of tobacco into France. As early as May, 1785,
he managed to obtain a copy of a document indicating that
some London dealers were offering to the Farmers-general large
quantities of Virginia tobacco. He communicated the docu-
ment at once to Jefferson, and suggested that it was important
for both countries to eliminate the London middlemen. Direct
commercial relations should be established between France
and America, not only as a matter of patriotism, but also as a
matter of interest.^

This proposed change in the traditional policy of the
Farmers-general, who were accustomed to deal with British
intermediaries, met with a strong opposition from the Farmers-

ijefiferson to the Governor of Maryland. June 16, 1785. Memorial Edition,

V.8.

178 T PI OMAS JEFFERSON

general. For reasons which they did not state openly, they
refused either to deal with independent American growers, or
to buy from a new and strictly American company planned by
Jefferson.^

Unable to overcome the resistance of the Farmers-general,
JeJfferson decided that the next step would be to fight the mo-
nopoly and to persuade the Court to do away with it. It was a
logical more than a truly diplomatic procedure, since Jefferson
took upon himself to meddle in the internal affairs of the govern-
ment to which he was accredited. But Jefferson, without being
the originator of the famous “shirt-sleeve” diplomacy, was not
the man to let diplomatic proprieties stand in the way of the best
interests of his country. Furthermore, he was quite sincere in
his belief that he was acting to the greatest advantage of both
France and America. He therefore wrote to Vergennes a long
letter, in which he stated the advantages which would accrue
to the royal treasury from the abolition of the tobacco mon-
opoly.^

There is no indication that Vergennes resented in any way
Jefferson’s suggestion ; but there is no evidence either that he
paid any attention to it. Things remained in the same con-
dition to the end of the year. Up to that date, Lafayette had
fought as a free lance the commercial battle of the United States,
using his personal influence and family connections to under-
mine the prestige of the Farmers-general. At the beginning
of 1786, Calonne, yielding to his solicitations, formed the
Comitfi du Commerce composed of Farmers-general, inspectors
of commerce, and members of the council, in order to study the
future of the commercial relations between France and the
United States. Lafayette was appointed to the committee on
February 9, 1786. He had very little training in economics
and had never displayed any particular aptitude for financial

To Messes. French and Nephew. July 13, 1785. Memorial Edition, V, 34.

* August 15, 1785. Ibid., V, 68.

GALLO-AMERICAN COMMERCE 179

problems. But back of him was Jefierson, and on the com-
mittee Lafayette was nothing but the spokesman of the Ameri-
can Plenipotentiary. The account of his speeches before the
committee, given by Brissot, and reprinted in a note to the
“Memoirs of General Lafayette”, is simply the resume of a
letter sent by Jefferson to Vergennes six months earlier. Jeffer-
son prompted him, furnished him with figures and statistics,
and in a letter written at the eleventh hour urged him to expose
the fundamental dishonesty of the Farmer s-general. Since,
according to their own figures, said Jefferson, they lose annually
over four million livres by the farming of tobacco “the king,
in favor to them, should discontinue the bail ; and they cannot
ask its continuance without acknowledging they have given
in a false state of quantities and sruns.” ‘

Standing alone in the committee against a strong combination
of skilled financiers, Lafayette was fighting for a lost cause with-
out any profit to himself or any visible hope of success.®

Both Lafayette and Jefferson were outmaneuvered by the
financiers. They professed that they were willing to denounce
their contracts with the London merchants, and thus seemed to
accomplish a grand patriotic gesture, but they granted to the
American financier, Robert Morris, the exclusive privilege of
buying tobacco for them and thus defeated the main purpose
of Jefferson. The minister had to confess that he was beaten,
although he had spared no pains to strike at the root of the
monopoly. “The persons interested in it are too powerful to
be opposed, even by the interest of the whole country.” ^

But it was not in liis character ever to give up; he soon
renewed the attack at another point. First he succeeded in
postponing for six months the effect of the new lease to Morris,
and thus permitted American importers who had accumulated

‘Jefferson Papers. Library of Congress, Feb. 20, 1786.

* Lafayette’s letter. March. 18, 1786. Ibid.

® To the Governor of Virginia, January 24, 1786. Memorial Edition, V, 253.

i8o THOMAS JEFFERSON

stocks in Lorient to sell them directly to the Farmers-general.
Some time later he partially nullified the concession to Morris
by obtaining an order from the council “obliging the Farmers-
general to purchase from such other merchants as shall offer
fifteen thousand hogshead of tobacco”, and to grant to the
sellers in other respects the same terms as they had granted
Robert Morris.

Thus, indirectly but very effectively, Jefferson finally
achieved his purpose : to undermine an odious monopoly which
caused a great loss to the planters of his country ; to enable the
American consumers to buy directly from France manufactured
products, or at least those “commodities which it is more
advantageous to us to buy here than in England, or elsewhere ” ;
finally “to reinforce the motives for a friendship from this
country towards ours. — This friendship we ought to cultivate
closely, considering the present dispositions of England towards
us.” 1

In addition, he flattered himself that he had taught the
French some sound economic principles ;

I have been for some time occupied in endeavouring to destroy the
root of the evils which the tobacco trade encounters in this country,
hy making the ministers sensible that merchants will not bring a
commodity to a market, where but one person is allowed to buy it ;
and that so long as that single purchaser is obliged to go to foreign
markets for it, he must pay for it in coin and not in commodities.
These truths have made their way to the mind of the ministry
insomuch, as to have delayed the execution of the new lease of the
farms, six months. It is renewed, however, for three years, but so
as not to render impossible a reformation of the great evil. They
are sensible to the evil, but it is so interwoven with their fiscal system,
that they find it hazardous to disentangle. The temporary distress,
too, of the revenue, they are not prepared to meet. My hopes,
therefore, are weak, though not quite desperate.®

* To James Ross, May 8, 1786. MemorW Edition, V, 3Si.

’ To James Ross, May 8, 1786, Ibid., V, 329.

GALLO-AMERICAN COMMERCE i8i

One might well wonder to what extent these “truths” were
as new to the French as Jefferson seemed to believe, and to what
extent he was operative in strengthening the opposition to the
Farmers-general, already very strong in France. However
that may be, the American minister learned from the French
example as much as he taught the members of the committee.
The tobacco monopoly was to him another object lesson on the
danger of farming taxes, and he did not forget it.

Even greater obstacles were encountered by Jefferson and
Lafayette in their effort to develop commercial transactions
with New England. The negotiations extended over three
years and would be worth relating in detail,^ Jefferson, bent on
breaking customs barriers and obtaining free entrance for the
products of New England fisheries, brought forward every
possible argument to fight the doctrine of commercialism and
summed up his case in a letter sent to Lafayette, but evidently
intended for the committee. There for the first time he pointed
out the necessary connection existing between the tariff ques-
tion and the repayment of the French debt. The problem of
“transfers” is not a new one, and Jefferson’s reasoning sounds
strangely familiar to all those who have paid any attention to
our present problems of debt settlement, reparations, and tariff.
The following passage seems particularly worth quoting :

On running over the catalogue of American imports, France will
naturally mark out those articles which she could supply us to
advantage ; and she may safely calculate, that, after a little time
shall have enabled us to get rid of our present incumbrances, and
some remains of attachment to the particular forms of manufacture
to which we have been habituated, we shall take those articles which
she can furnish, on as good terms as other nations, to whatever extent
she will enable us to pay for them. It is her interest therefore, as
well as ours, to multiply the means of payment. These must be

^For a brief but satisfactory treatment see W. K. Woolery. “The Relation of
Thomas Jefferson to American Foreign Policy, 1783-1793." Baltimore, 1927.

i 82 THOMAS JEFFERSON

found in the catalogue of our exportS) and among these will be seen
neither gold nor silver. We have no mines of either of those metals.
Produce therefore is all we can ofier.^

The conclusion was that it was imperative to obtain such
abatement of duties and even such exemptions as the
importance of the article might justify, in the hope that his
country would be enabled to build up a commercial credit of
about 375,000 louis, which would provide for the service and
amortization of the American debt to France.

Thanks to the unrelenting efforts of Lafayette and also to
the sympathetic attitude of the committee, a series of arrUs
du conseil listed in a letter to Monroe was finally obtained.^
There was little hope at first that they would be countersigned,
but in October of the same year Jefferson, with evident satis-
faction, was able to inform Jay of the new regulations granting
free ports to America, abolishing export taxes on brandies, and
for a year the tax on whale oil and spermaceti, on potash, furs,
leather, timber, trees, and shrubbery, brought either in Amer-
ican or French bottoms. Every effort had been made not only
to place the United States on the footing of the most favored
nation, but to encourage her infant industries and manufac-
tures. The new regulations approved by Calonne did much to
free America from her commercial subservience to Great Britain
and also reinforce, according to Jefferson^s wishes, the motives
for a “friendship from France towards America.”

This was by no means the end of all difficulties ; the abate-
ment on whale oil was only temporary and Jefferson was never
able to obtain entire satisfaction in respect to the tobacco trade,
but there is no doubt that the situation had greatly improved.

Even during the last months of his stay in France he never
overlooked an opportunity to further the commercial interests
of the United States. His fear to see his fellow countrymen

'■ Letter to Lafayette, July 17, 1786 Library of Congress.

‘ July 9 j Memorid Edition, V, 357.

GALLO-AMERICAN COMMERCE 183

“over-trade themselves and embark into the ocean of specu-
lation” had not abated. He still believed that “we have no
occasion for more commerce than to take off our superfluous
produce”, and tobacco was clearly in that class.’ But at that
time there arose an opportunity both to develop commercial
relations and to be of distinct service to France. The years
that immediately precede the French Revolution were marked
by a very distressing food shortage in France and particularly
in the capital. This was one of the most disquieting problems
confronting the Committee of Commerce and the city syndics.
Jefferson, because of his connections with Lafayette, Du Pont
de Nemours, and Mr. Ethis de Corny, was particularly well
informed on the situation and he turned his best efforts to
induce the government to remedy it through the importation of
American products. He thought that besides the salt fish
from New England, salt meat and corn beef would constitute
a desirable addition to the French diet and he undertook a
campaign to convert the French to the idea. One of his last
letters to Necker, on September 26, 1789, was to recommend
the importation of salted provisions from the United States,
appraising the quality of American salt meat, for “the experi-
ence of a great part of America, which is fed almost entirely on
it, proves it to be as wholesome as fresh meat.” ^

In spite of aU the obstacles to the development of the Gallo-
American commerce because of the deep-rooted French horror
of innovations and changes, the efforts of Jefferson and his
friends were not wholly unavailing. According to Mr. Woolery,
in 1789 importations from the United States amounted to
140,959 barrels of flour, 3,664,576 bushels of wheat and
12,340,000 pounds of rice. Vessels coming from the United
States to French ports in this year Included thirteen French,
forty-three English and one hundred and sixty-three American ;

1 To Washington, August 14, 1787. Memorial Edition, VI, 277.

VII, 478.

i84 THOMAS JEFFERSON

the tonnage of American vessels was 19,173 24,173

in 1789. Exports to France in 1788 were valued at $1,384,246 ;
to French possessions in America $3,284,656 ; and from them,
$155,136 and $1,913,212 respectively. In this trade the Ameri-
can tonnage engaged was approximately ten tinaes that of the
French. The philosopher had proved himself a first-class
commercial agent. He had built up trade relations which
would have consolidated the friendship between the two coun-
tries if the Revolution had not intervened. But no real friend-
ship can exist between creditor and debtor ; the debt problem
was no less important than the commercial problem, and Jeffer-
son displayed on this occasion an ingenuity and a diplomatic
skill no less worthy of commendation.

Wlien he took charge of the legation at Paris the finances of
the United States were in a deplorable condition. Loans made
by the Farraers-general, by Beaumarchais, by the King of
France, and loans contracted in Holland and in Spain, con-
stituted the most important outstanding liabilities of the
American Government. In 1783 the situation as reported to
Congress was as follows :

To the Farmers-geueral of France, livres . 1,000,000

To Beaumarchais 3,000,000

To King of France, to the end of 1782 . . 28,000,000

To same for 1783 6,000,000

To this total was to be added a loan from Holland for $671,200,
and $150,000 borrowed from Spain by Jay. Interest was com-
ing in at the rate of four per cent, on the French loan, making it
a total of approximately $7,885,000, The domestic situation
was far worse; the States had plunged into issues of paper
money; $241,552,780 had been issued in bills of credit by
Congress, and $209,524,776 by the States.

If it is remembered that private investors had bought Ameri-
can paper rather recklessly, that important sums were due to

GALLO-AMERICAN COMMERCE 185

England, and that the United States could not even meet the
interest on the debts without further borrowing, it is small
wonder that European creditors began to wonder whether they
would ever be repaid. The first task confronting the new
Minister Plenipotentiary was to convince them that the United
States as then organized had a sufficient stability to allay
all fears. Jefferson undertook at once to clarify the situation.
In a letter to the Dutch bankers, N. and J. Van Staphorst, he
asserted that no man in America had ever entertained any
doubt that “our foreign debt is to be paid fully.” He signifi-
cantly added ; “ Were I the holder of any of them, I should not
have the least fear of their full pa3rment.” But he had to call
the attention of the bankers to the fact that some international
notes were issued for paper money debts, and those of course
would be subject to a certain depreciation, to be settled by
Congress according to carefully worked out tables. The safer
thing, therefore, for European investors was to beware of and
to avoid any speculation on American bills and “foreigners
should be sure that they are well advised, before they meddle
with them, or they may suffer.” ^ He repeated the same
advice on October 25 : “It is a science which bids defiance to
the powers of reason.”

With the particulars of the different loans obtained by Jeffer-
son while he was in France, and with the transactions that took
place in Holland, we cannot deal here, It would be a study well
worth undertaking separately, and one for which there is abun-
dant material not yet utilized in the Jefferson papers, particu-
larly in his correspondence with Dumas, the agent at the Hague.
We shall restrict ourselves, however, to the political aspect of
the debt settlement during Jefferson’s mission.

The French were at first very polite about it ; without insist-
ing in any way on the question of payment, Vergennes simply
asked Jefferson whether “the condition of American finances

' July 30, 1783. Memorial Edition, V, 45.

i86 THOMAS JEFFERSON

was improving.” The French minister did not even mention
the possibilities of the United States paying the arrears of the
interest; but Jefferson suffered and irked, thinlcing that he
was probably expected to mention it first, while he could not
do so without instructions and there were "no visible means
to pay anything for the present.” ^

Curiously enough, the matter came to a head with England
during the trip made by Jefferson in the spring of 1786. tie
held several conferences with the British merchants and tried
to obtain with them a sort of compromise by which American
merchants would repay in full the capital of debts contracted
before and after the war, but withdrawing pa)nnent of the
interest for the period of the war. It was then that Jefferson
put forth the principle he was to main tarn persistently with the
French, — namely that the matter of commerce and the ques-
tion of the debts could not be separated, "were it only as a
means of enabling our country to pay its debts.” ®

The chief fault of Jefferson’s solution, however, was that
there was very little America could sell to England, while the
Americans themselves were eagerly buying goods manufactured
in England. There was great danger of seeing that economic
vassalage perpetuated, for "instead of a proper equrlibriuna,
everything at present lies aE in the British scale.” ^ Importa-
tions being permitted, fashion and folly requiring EngEsh
products, the coimtry was sinking deeper and deeper into
poverty, and all the news on the matter received by Jefferson
"filled him with despair.”

However, something had to be done at once in the case of
the French debt, as Jefferson knew that the French Minister of
Finance was “at his wit’s end to raise supplies for the ensuing
year.” ^ It does not appear that the French Court had made

‘ To Jay, August 14, 1785, Memorial Edition, V, 65.

* To John Jay, April 23, 1786. tbid., V, 300.

’ To T. Pleasants, May 8, 1786. IMd., V, 324.

‘ To Jay, September 26, 1786. Ibid , V, 426.

GALLO-AMERICAN COMMERCE 187

any representation on the debt to the American Plenipotentiary,
but Jefferson fully realized that he was placed in a position of
inferiority as long as the vexing question remained unsettled
and payments on the interest were overdue. This was the
more deplorable, as France was the only European nation with
which the United States could hope to develop really satis-
factory relations. It was at this juncture that a very inter-
esting proposition was made through Dumas by the Dutch
bankers. The French debt’s most objectionable feature was
that it placed the American Government under direct obliga-
tion to the French ; in other words, as we would say now, it was
a political debt, but means might be fomid to change it into a
purely commercial debt. If a company of bankers were formed
to pay off France at once, the American Government would
be able to treat with them on a business basis, the greatest
advantage being that in case of delayed payments, no political
pressure could be exerted or political advantage claimed.

The only objection to such a combination was that it could not
be made without the consent of both the French and American
governments, and negotiations to that efiect would necessarily
take a long time. To provide for the most pressing needs,
Jefferson proposed to raise directly in Holland the four and
twenty millions due to France as accrued interest. This would
make a beginning and create a precedent. In the meantime
Adams was urged to go to Holland to acquaint himself with the
situation, so as to be able to present a definite solution to
Congress on his return to America.’- The French court
remained very considerate and did not make any formal repre-
sentations ; but very harsh criticism of the failure of America
to meet her obligations were heard during the Assemblee des
Notables. The funds were so low that the American Govern-
ment could not even pay its debts to the French officers who,

^To Jay, September 26, 1786. Memorial Edition, V, 426; to Adams, July 17,
1787. Ibid., VI, 173; to James Madison, August 2, 1787. Ibid., VI, 215.

i88 THOMAS JEFFERSON

because of their influence with the Court, should have received
special consideration. Yet Congress did not seem to realize
how pressing the matter was, and Jefferson could only repeat
with real despair and disgust: “Would to heaven they would
authorize you to take measures for transferring the debt of this
cormtry to Holland before you leave Europe.” ^

On their side, the French Court did their best to reassure the
French creditors, and when the written report of the Assemblies
des Notables appeared it had been considerably toned down,
simply stating that :

. . . the interest of the claims of His Majesty on the United
States of America, cannot be drawn out for the present, except as a
document. The recovery of these claims, as well as principal as
perhaps even interest, although they appear to rest on the most
solid security, may, nevertheless, be long delayed, and should not
consequently, be taken into account in estimating the annual
revenue.

But even that mention seemed to Jefferson a reflection on the
national honor of his country. He was harassed by French
claimants ; Beaumarchais had just placed in his hands a me-
morial to Congress ; French officers were writing to him and call-
ing on him, threatening to sell their claims to a single creditor,
or to ask the court to intervene in their favor. But all the
unfortunate American minister could answer was that Congress
“would do in that business, what justice would require, and
their means enable them.” ®

At the end of the same year he learned that Congress had
rejected the proposition of the Dutch bankers, and he could not
help expressing deep disappointment. One hope was left how-
ever : the sale of western lands then going on which would
provide Congress with important liquid assets.

* To J. Adams, July 17, 1787. Memorial Edition, VI, 173.

^ To John Jay, August 6, 1787. lUd., VI, 248.

GALLO-AMERICAN COMMERCE 189

I turn to tins precious resource ~ lie wrote to a friend — as that
which will, in every event, liberate us from our domestic debt, and
perhaps too, from our foreign one ; and this much sooner than I had
expected. I do not think anything could have been done with them
in Europe. Individual speculators and sharpers had duped so
many with their unlocated land-warrants, that every offer would be
suspected.^

In the meantime something had to be done to reassure the
creditors of the United States, and Jefferson pressed Dumas to
publish a series of articles in the Gazette of Leyden to demon-
strate the financial stability of his country. The situation had
to be presented as follows ; two sales of hve million and two
million acres respectively had been made, another for four
million was in process and Jefferson considered that these sales
had absorbed seven million dollars of the domestic Federal
debt. The States had absorbed by taxation and otherwise
about ten million dollars, so “that the debt stands now at about
ten millions of dollars, and will probably be aU absorbed in the
course of next year. There will remain then our foreign debt,
between ten and twelve millions, including interest. The sale
of land will then go on for payment of this.” * But in spite of
this official optimism the Commissioners of the Treasury had
informed Willincks and Van Staphorsts that they should “not
be able to remit one shlllmg till the New Government gets into
action” and that consequently they were not to pay anything
towards the interest of the Dutch loan except out of the proceeds
of the last loan. To which the Dutch bankers had answered
that “ there was not much prospect to raise as much on that new
loan as would cover the next June interest and that the credit
of the United States was in danger of beiug wiped off.” ® As
Adams was about to leave for America, Jefferson, at the request

'December 21, 1787 Memorial Edition, VI, 394.

^ To Dumas, February 12, 1788. Ibid , VI, 429.

®To Adams, February 6, 1787 Ibid, VI, 419. To The Commissioners of the
Treasury, Feb. 7, 1788. Ibid., VI, 421.

190 THOMASJEFFERSON

of the Dutch bankers, met him at Amsterdam and for several
days the two American envoys did their best to convince close-
fisted financiers, who had speculated in American bonds
and refused to do anything until paid for the interest on the
domestic bonds they held. They finally yielded, but to avoid
further embarrassment Jefferson and Adams decided to pro-
vide at one stroke for the years 1789 and 1790 by signing
new bonds for a million florins, subject to approval of
Congress.^

The real danger, as both Adams and Jefferson saw it, came
from unwise speculation m American domestic bonds, since the
bankers had tried to use these bonds as a sort of lever ; conse-
quently the transfer of domestic bonds to Europe was to be
discouraged by every possible means. “If the transfer of these
debts to Europe, meet with any encouragement from us, we
can no more borrow money here, let our necessities be what
they will.”

How desperate the situation was at that date appears in two
letters written to General Washington May 2, 1788, and to
James Madison, May 3, 1788.^ Jefferson’s visit at Amsterdam
had convinced him that the credit of the United States was at
its lowest ebb and in great danger of being reduced to nil. The
nation with the highest credit was Great Britain, because the
English never asked for a loan without providing by new taxes
for tire repayment of it. ’ He indicated that no doubt was
entertained by any one in Holland about the ultimate repay-
ment of the capital, but that repeated failures to pay the interest
on the old loans had stopped any further borrowing. As to
the French debt, the Court had carefully avoided any public
mention of it, “the government here, saying nothing about it,
the public have supposed they wished to leave us at our ease

> Match i6, 1788. Memorial Edition, VI, 438.

* To the Commissioners of the Treasury, March 29, 1788. Ibid., VI, 433,

*J 6 id; VI, 447 and 443.

GALLO-AMERICAN COMMERCE 191

as to the pa3mient. It is now seen that they call lor it, and
they will publish annually the effect of that call.” The most
pressing need was an order from the Treasury to pay the arrears
for the last three years to the French officers. With much
difficulty Jefferson had prevented them from holding a meeting
to agree on concerted action on the matter, and when he came
back he prevented them from taking “desperate measures”
till July. But a solution could not be deferred much longer.
The necessary sum was comparatively small ; twenty thou-
sand florins a year would have sufficed “to suppress these
clamors”, and through diplomacy he finally succeeded in stay-
ing the address they intended to send to Congress and to the
king, asking him to intervene on their behalf.^

Fortunately the loan launched in Holland to meet the pay-
ment of the June mterest had succeeded and had been finally
ratified by Congress.^ It was a beginning that brought some
respite to Jefferson, but he insisted again that the next step to
take was the fimding of the foreign debt, for the French Govern-
ment expected “a very satisfactory provision for the payment
of their debt, from the first session of the new Congress.” ® He
was enclosing two tables “showing what fund will suffice to
discharge the principal and interest, as it shall become due
aided by occasional loans, which the same fund will repay.”
This very detailed and technical proposal now preserved in the
Jefferson papers of the Library of Congress would repay careful
study.

During the spring of the same year, however, Jefferson made
a startling discovery which added to his distress. The inter-
national bankers of Amsterdam were not as politically dis-
interested as he had thought at first. He even suspected tliat,

' To the Honorable, The Board of the Treasury, May i6, 1788. Memorial Edition,
VII, 9.

“ To Jolm Jay I May 23, 1788. Ibid., 'VH, 22 ; To the Commissioners of the Treasury,
September 6, 1788. Ibid , ITI, 136.

®To James Madison, November 18, 1788. Ibid., VII, 186.

192 THOMASJEFFERSON

by careful manipulations, they intended to keep control of the
credit of the United States.

I have observed — wrote Jefferson — that as soon as a sum of
interest is becoming due, they are able to borrow just that, and no
more ; or, at least, only so much more as may pay our salaries and
keep us Ciuiet ... I think it possible, they may choose to support
OUT credit to a certain point, and let it go no further, but at their
will ; to keep it poised, as that it may be at their mercy. By this,
they may be sure to keep us in their own hands ^

This had to be remedied at once ; energetic representations
were sent to the bankers and an order of the Treasury was
obtained deciding that “money for the captives and foreign
affairs was to be furnished before any other payment of
interest.”^

In spite of these tremendous handicaps, due to the apathy of
Congress, to the “stagnation” of American affairs, Jefferson
succeeded, through sheer persistency and hard work, in gaining
at least a few points. The history of his negotiations concern-
ing the debt and the commerce of the United States may not
be so dramatic and picturesque as some other episodes of his
long career ; but it cannot be neglected without doing injustice
to his sense of duty, to his industry and above aU to his political
vision and understandmg of international psychology. The
application to the present situation is so obvious that it needs
not to be elaborated upon. More fortunate than many recent
negotiators, Jefferson had been able to obtain a settlement of
the debt question satisfactory to both parties, and succeeded
in eliminating the political factor from the situation ; the debt
to France was no longer an obstacle to the maintenance of
friendly relations between the two countries. He was not tlie
man to boast of his achievements but the legitimate pride he
felt at having done his work to the best of his ability appears in

' To John Jay, March 12, 1788 Memorial Edition, VII, 2g6.

* To John Jay, May 9, 1788. Ibid., VII, 345.

GALLO-AMERICAN COMMERCE 193

the letter he wrote to John Jay shortly before his departure from
France ;

I am well informed that our credit is now the first at that exchange
(Amsterdam), (England not borrowing at present). Our five per
cent, bonds have risen to ninety-seven and ninety-nine. They have
been heretofore at ninety-three. There are, at this time, several
companies and individuals here, in England and Holland, negotiating
to sell large parcels of our liquidated debt. A bargain was concluded
by one of these the other day, for six hundred thousand dollars.
In the present state of our credit, every dollar of this debt will
probably be transferred to Europe within a short time.^

' To John Jay, September 19, 1789. Memorial Edition, VII, 471.

CHAPTER III

UNION AND ISOLATION

Even an incomplete survey of Jefferson’s activities in Paris
would convince any one that at all times the preoccupation
uppermost in his mind was to defend and further the interests
of the United States. He shared practically without any res-
ervation the commonly accepted theory of his time that self-
interest is the most powerful motive of human actions, and that
enlightened self-mterest is the true foundation of morality.
Never a sentimentalist, he felt it his duty to put all the ques-
tions he had to discuss on a purely practical basis, neglecting
every other consideration. He had been welcomed enthu-
siastically and would have been lionized if he had permitted it.
But in the midst of the adulation showered upon him by Madame
d’Houdetot, Madame de Tesse and the friends of liberty, he
endeavored to keep a cool head; and at the end of his first year
in France, he summed up as follows his views of the situation :

The body of the people of this country love us cordially. But
ministers and merchants love nobody. The merchants here, are
endeavoring to exclude us from their islands, the ministers will be
governed in it by their political motives, and will do it or not do it,
as these shall appear to dictate, without love or hatred to anybody.
It were to be wished that they were able to combine better, the
various circumstances which prove, beyond a doubt, that all the
advantages of their colonies result in the end, to the mother country.

Representing a country hardly organized, without any dip-
lomatic traditions, and inexperienced in dealing with foreign
affairs, Jefferson had no easy task. One of his first duties was

' To Johu Langdoo, September ii, 1785. Memorial Edition, V, 139.

UNION AND ISOLATION 195

to convince tlie diplomats he was dealing with that America
was a country to be trusted, in which existed a certain per-
manency and some sort of responsible organization with which
it was possible to deal. This preoccupation influenced to
such an extent his views on the American Constitution that
they can be considered to a large extent a result of his experi-
ences in Europe.

As chairman of the committee on the ratification of the peace
treaties, as plenipotentiary entrusted with the negotiations of
the treaties of commerce, Jefferson had more than once felt
how insufficient were the Articles of Confederation. He had
repeatedly proclaimed that to all intents and purposes the
United States were to be regarded as one nation ; but as long
as treaties with foreign powers had to be ratified not only by
Congress but by the different States, as long as delegates had to
refer constantly to the particular States they represented, the
Federal organization remained a very clumsy, inefficient piece
of machinery, and business could not be transacted. He never
thought for an instant that it was possible or desirable for the
former colonies to remain completely independent ; they had
at least to form a society of nations in order to insure their very
existence and their development. His first months in Europe
could only confirm him in these views, and he wrote to Madi-
son at the end of 1786 : ‘'To make us one nation as to foreign
concerns, and keep us distinct in domestic ones, gives the out-
lines of the proper division of powers between the general and
particular governments. But to enable the federal head to
exercise the powers given it to best advantage, it should be
organized as the particular ones are, into legislative, execu-
tive and judiciary."

At that date, however, he had not admitted the desirability
of appointing a single executive and came back to 3,11 his pro-
posals of vesting the executive powers in a committee of the
States, leaving to Congress the legislative authority.

196 THOMAS JEFFERSON

To Adams, who saw in Congress “not a legislative but a
diplomatic assembly”, he protested that it was an opinion not
entirely correct and not likely to do good. As a matter of fact,
in forming a confederation, the individual States yielded some
parts of their sovereignty to Congress, and these parts were
both legislative and executive. The confederation was part
of the law of the land, and “superior in authority to the or-
dinary laws, because it cannot be altered by the legislature of
any one State.” It is not without piquancy to remark here
that the man who was to become the champion of State rights
and decentralization was advocating a strong Federal bond,
while the future Federalist was in favor of a very loose associa-
tion of States, truly a sort of League of Nations. In Jefferson’s
view, on the contrary, the United States as such were endowed
with a sort of super-power, while the independent States re-
tained only those rights which they were able to exercise fully.’-
On the other hand. Congress should have absolutely no au-
thority over acts which do not concern the confederacy. In
case of conflict an appeal could be made “from a state judica-
ture to a Federal court”, in other words to a Supreme Court,
and there again Jefferson takes the position which his enemies
were fifteen years later to defend against him, namely that
there ought to be some power above Congress to restrain it.

It will be said that this court may encroach over the jurisdiction
of the State courts. It may. But there will be a power, to wit,
Congress, to watch and restrain them. But place the same author-
ity in Congress itself, and there will be no power above them, to
perform the same office. They will restrain within due bounds a
Jurisdiction exercised by others, much more rigourously than if
exercised by themselves.®

In a letter to Edward Carrington he summed up his views
even more dearly. Reforms are necessary, although with aU

• To John Adams, February 23, 1787. Memorial Edition, VI, 97.

® To James Madison, June so, 1787. Ibid., VI, 132.

UNION AND ISOLATION 197

its defects the present government of the United States is so
far superior to any monarchy that its defects must be viewed
with indulgence. If any change is to be made, the general
principle ought to be

to make the States one as to everything connected with foreign
nations, and several as to everything purely domestic. Then
to separate the executive from the legislative in order to avoid the
terrible delays which are bound to happen with a large assembly
and to have the most important propositions hanging over, from
week to week and month to month, till the occasions have passed
them, and the things never done.*

Even if originally Jefferson had been of another opinion, the
situation in Europe would have rapidly brought him to the same
conclusion. For the credit of the United States could only be
maintained on the condition that the newly formed confedera-
tion gave guarantees of permanency and stability. In his
letters to foreign correspondents, such as Diunas, financial
agent of the United States in Holland, he consequently affected
more confidence in the wisdom of the convention than he per-
haps felt at heart ;

No trouble of any sort is to be anticipated. Happily for us that
when we find our constitutions defective and insufficient, to secure
the happiness of our people, we can assemble with all the coolness
of philosophers, and set it to rights, while every other nation on earth
must have recourse to arms to amend or restore their constitutions.^

The main principle to observe is a separation of powers into
“legislative, executive and judiciary” as complete as possible,
and the rest will follow of itself.

Yet as the convention approached, he favored less than ever
the possibility of trusting any individual with the executive
power for an indefinite length of time. “There are things in

^ August 4, 1787, Memorial Edition, VI, 227.

’ September 10, 1787. Ibid., VI, 295.

198 THOMAS JEFFERSON

it -which stagger all my dispositions to subscribe to what such
an Assembly has proposed,” he wrote to Adams. His chief
objection to the Constitution was the appointment of a Presi-
dent who would be a sort of Polish king. If they wanted a
President they could have it, provided they should make him
ineligible at the end of four years. He even came to wonder
whether too much ado was not made by the convention, for all
the good that was ia the new Constitution “could have been
couched in three or four new articles added to the old articles
of confederation.” Far from being a radical and one of these
reformers who first think of destroying the old order of things
in order to buUd anew, Jefferson proposed to keep as much as
possible “the good old and venerable fabric which should have
been preserved, even as a religious relic.” ’■

At that time Jefferson had not yet received the text of the
Constitution and had only vaguely heard of the discussion in
the convention. When the newspapers brought him more de-
tails, he acquainted Carmichael with his views on the situa-
tion. This time his ob j action to the proposed scheme was m ore
specific. It bore not only on the presidency but on the absence
of a Bill of Rights ; the thirteen States could not be melted
into one government without guarantees to the people, and
particularly -without the recognition of the freedom of the press.
The subordination of the laws of the States to Federal legis-
lation was equally objectionable, and he predicted that many
States, among them Virginia, would reject several articles,
making it necessary to assemble another convention to reach
a better agreement.^

But it was reserved for Madison finally to become his con-
fident on this question, and Jefferson’s letter to him is both a
capital document for the history of Jeffersonian democracy

* To John Adams, November 13, 1787, Memorial Edition, VT, 370. See also
letter to Colonel Smith, written the same day. Ibid., VI, 372.

’ December ii, 17S7. IM., VI, 380.

UNION AND ISOLATION 199

and a discussion of the first rank on the science of government.
The good things Jefferson saw in the Constitution were many ;
the division of powers ; the election of a greater House by the
people directly ; the negative given to the executive by a third
of either Houses, and many others of less moment. But the
absence of a Bill of Rights could not be condoned, for it was a
sacred palladium of liberty, nor the abandonment of rotation
in office, particularly in the case of the President. He did not
despair of the Commonwealth, but he foresaw the necessity
of calling another convention to agree on an explicit Bill of
Rights and to change the objectionable features of the conven-
tion. In a postscript, he made one of those curious proposals
which would be disconcerting if it were not remembered that
his faith in democracy and representative government was
tempered with a great deal of common sense. The people are
right most of the time, the people are right in most cases, but
the people are not right in all cases ; they are apt to be swayed
by temporary interests and considerations and they are apt
also to pass contradictory laws from day to day. In order to
remedy this instability of legislation, Jefferson did not hesitate
to recommend that there should always be “a twelvemonth
between the engrossing a bill and passing it”, adding that if
circumstances required a speedier passage, it should take “two
thirds of both Houses instead of a bare majority.” ^

Having thus defined his position with regard to the Con-
stitution, he thought it necessary to qualify it. Despite its
imperfections, it contained many excellent points; and if it
were felt that insistence on a Bill of Rights, or on the principle
of rotation for the presidency should cause dissensions be-
tween the States, Jefferson declared himself ready “to swallow
the two bitter pills” in order to avoid a schism in the Union.
For that would be “the incurable evil” because near friends,
faffing out, never re-united cordially; “whereas, all of us

1 December 20, 1787. Memorial Edition, VI, 393.

200

THOMAS JEFFERSON

going together, we shall be sure to cure the evils of our new
Constitution before they do great harm.” ^

The unlimited confidence he had in the ultimate wisdom of
the people convinced liim that if they went wrong for a time
they would soon admit their mistakes, for there was in America
a “good sense and a free spirit” which was the safest guarantee
that things will right themselves in time. First ratify and
amend afterwards, such was therefore the best procedure to
follow, and he prayed heartily that a sufficient number of
States would ratify, even Virgina and obstinate little Rhode
Island ! For after ah. there was no immediate danger, and the
character of Washington was such that nobody could suspect
him of coveting a life tenure for himself.®

Following anxiously and almost day by day the progress
of the ratification, he declared himself perfectly satisfied with
the successful result obtained in August, 1788, and was con-
fident that the two main defects would be remedied, the first
one, the lack of a Bill of Rights, very soon, the other as soon
as General Washington should retire from office. Jefferson
had come gradually to this stand, to a large extent under the
influence of the Federalist, which had “rectified him on several
points” and which he considered the “best commentary on the
principles of government ever written.” ®

The most complete expression of Jefferson’s views at that
time is found in a letter to Francis Hopkinson, written at the
beginning of 1789. He had been informed that both Ms friends
and his enemies were trying to put a definite label on him and
protested on that occasion that he was not a Federalist, be-
cause, he said, “I never submitted the whole system of my
opinions to the creed of any party whatever, in religion, in

1 To Donald, February 7, 1787. Memorial Edition, VI, 4«s.

* To Carmichael and to Colonel Carrington, May 27, 1787. Ihid., VII, 27, 29.

’To Carmichael, August ts, 1787. Ibid, VII, 124; to James Madison, Novem-
ber 18, 178S, Ibid., VII, 183; to General Washington, December 4, 1788, Ibid., VII,

UNION AND ISOLATION 201

politics, or in anything else, where I was capable of thinking
for myself. If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I
would not be there at all.” But he added at once, “ I am even
farther from the anti-federalists.” Neither a Federalist, nor
an anti-Federalist, nor “a. trimmer between parties”, he abso-
lutely refused at that date to take sides, for he would have been
sure to draw criticism from the other side and to see his name
in the papers. This was to be avoided at any cost, for “the
pain of a little censure, even when it is unfounded, is more
acute than the pleasure of much praise.” As a matter of fact,
Jefferson was already preparing to become the leader of a new
party whose program would combine elements borrowed from
the Federalists as well as from their opponents, but which would
rest essentially upon principles apparently overlooked by both
sides. At that time he formulated in his own words the
principles already implied in the Declaration of Independence
which he had discussed earlier with Thomas Paine.

In forming a society of States, as well as in forming a society
of men, there are rights “which it is useless to surrender to
the government, and which governments have yet always been
found to invade.” These rights which cannot be abridged or
alienated are “the rights of thinking and publishing our
thoughts by speaking or writing ; the right of free commerce ;
the right of personal freedom.” In a similar way, there are
some instruments of government which are so trustworthy that
they ought to be placed beyond the power of any legislature to
alter ; the most important of these is probably trial by jury.
Scarcely less essential to the permanency of a free govermnent is
the absence of a standing army, for such a body of men whether
placed at the disposal of the executive or of the legislative
power, may always become an instrument of oppression.
Hence the necessity of a separate instrument, a Bill of Rights,
to secure and protect these fundamental principles of free gov-
ernment. On the whole, Jefferson declared himself well pleased

202

THOMAS JEFFERSON

with the Constitution “unquestionably the wisest ever yet
presented to men” ; its obvious defects would be remedied
in the near future, and in the meantime it had effected its main
object, the consolidation of the thirteen States into a Uniond

Whether Jefferson would have reached that lofty and dis-
interested attitude if he had remained in America is quite
another question. He was placed in a situation entirely dif-
ferent from that of his countrymen who could not help being
influenced by party politics and sectionalism. But it is a fact
worth remembering that before the Constitution was adopted,
the oivly men who constantly had to think of the United States
as one nation were the American ministers abroad. The very
fact that Jeffer.son was in Paris not only put him above all
parties, but brought home to him the fact that the United
States could not hope to face successfully external dangers or
even survive unless they gave up some of their liberty for
more security, while reserving some of their unalienable rights.
In his views on the Constitution, Jefferson remained perfectly
consistent and followed very closely the principles he had for-
mulated in 1776.

On the other hand, he had found in Europe an opportunity
to test his principles by facts and direct observation. He was
opposed to monarchy on general grounds, but he had seen in
France monarchy and absolutism at their worst. A well-
meaning king, not by any means a tyrant, unable to prevent
the dissolution of the nation, a corrupt hereditary aristocracy,
in the main narrow and selfish, a State religion, monopolies,
a standing army, “lettres de cacltef^ no freedom of the press,
everywhere ignorance and misery; such was the picture of
France that presented itself to his eyes ; and conditions were
such that they could not he remedied effectively except through
a bloody revolution, a last and desperate resort, to be dreaded
as much as monarchical oppression. In many respects the

* To Colonel Humphreys, March i8, 1789. Memorial Edition, VII, 324.

203

UNION AND ISOLATION

same situation prevailed all over Europe, demonstrating beyond
the possibility of a doubt that absolutism does not pay, that
it fails to procure the maximum of happiness to the largest
number of inhabitants, that it is wasteful, inefficient and leads
nations to follies, ruin, and war. America was free from all
these evils, but every precaution had to be used lest they should
take root there.

This task naturally required constant vigilance, for every-
where men in power have a tendency to continue in power, and
to extend the limits of their attributions; some safeguards
against these encroachments could be provided, the greatest
safeguard being the pressure of public opinion. Public opinion
could be misled temporarily; but after a time, in a country
where the citizens were reasonably educated, and knowledge
more diffused than in any other country, the chances were that
in most cases the citizens would see where their true interest
lay and correct such evils. This could be achieved only if the
citizens were in a position to collect information on the true
state of affairs, to discuss freely with their neighbors, and com-
municate their opinion so as to make that pressure felt. A
free press, therefore, was one of the most essential features of
a republican government, for one might conceive a modern
nation existing without a legislature, but it was impossible even
to think of a free government existing without the control of
the men who had subscribed to the social compact. Public
opinion and a free press were not a fourth estate, they were the
true source of all three powers, and superior to all.

Thus, after more than fifteen years of personal reflection
aided by direct observation, Jefferson came to formulate very
clearly in his own mind a certain number of principles founded
on reason and verified by facts. Whether he was at that time
under the influence of any particular philosopher cannot be
proved satisfactorily. It may even be said that it is very im-
probable, for he was not a man “to submit the whole system

204 THOMAS JEFFERSON

of his opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever.” Ele-
ments of different origins can be recognized in his political
philosophy : the theory of natural rights was perhaps Lockian
in its principle, but it had been developed by many pliiloso-
phers, incorporated in the Virginia Bill of Rights and thus
naturalized as American even before the Declaration of Inde-
pendence. The theory of the social compact, too, may have
come from Locke ; certainly it did not come from Rousseau ;
but Jefferson introduced into it a fundamental modification
when he distinguished between real natural rights and the
civil rights guaranteed by society but limited in order to pro-
vide for more safety. At any rate, Jefferson’s conception
of the social compact was far more rigorous, precise, and specific
than any that had been proposed before. A man who had been
trained as a lawyer knew exactly what a contract was, and how
necessary it is, in such an instrument, to write clauses safe-
guarding both parties. The BiU of Rights was to serve that
very purpose ; it was nothing but a document enumerating,
defining, and recognizing once for aU a certain number of rights
that every individual specifically reserved in joining a new
society. The constitution on the contrary was purely an in-
strument of government, susceptible of aU sorts of amend-
ments from time to time, and certainly from generation to gen-
eration. Public opinion was set up as a court of last resort in
ail cases ; for public opinion, not necessarily right in all cases,
is always right ultimately m a nation where people have
received a minimum of education and are kept informed by
a free press.

Such were the essential lines of Jefferson’s political philosophy
on the eve of his departure from France. It does not appear
that there was in it anything particularly English or particularly
French, although tire remote source of some ideas may be
traced to English and French political thinkers. His prin-
ciples, as a matter of fact, belonged to the common fund of

UNION AND ISOLATION 205

political thought drawn upon by all the liberal thinkers of the
eighteenth century, and Jefferson, calling no man his master,
simply reflected the general trend of his time. But whatever
may have been the primary origin of some of his ideas, he was
fully convinced that they corresponded to conditions existing
in America and nowhere else on earth, that in America alone
were they susceptible of immediate application and extensive
development.

These views on the uniqueness of America’s position among
the nations of the world contributed to the crystallization of
certain principles which Jefferson enunciated when he was sent
to Paris and endeavored to apply when Secretary of State and
President. They were to exert a tremendous influence upon
the destiny of the nation and to a certain extent are still to-day
the directing principles of America’s foreign policy.

If Jefferson had ever believed that it was possible for the
United States to cooperate effectively and satisfactorily with
Europe in any common undertaking, after his failure to or-
ganize a confederacy of the European States against the Bar-
bary pirates, he soon came to the conclusion that such a hope
was chimerical. The question of the navigation of the Medi-
terranean was not the least complicated of the puzzles that
confronted the American minister m Paris. After long hesi-
tations the European powers had finally adopted a modus vi-
vendi with the Barbary pirates — a solution far from satis-
factory, since it meant the paying of a regular tribute to the
Dey of Algiers, the Regency of Tunis, and the Sultan of Mo-
rocco. Was the young republic of the United States to follow
in their steps and accept such a humiliating compromise ? If
they refused, their commerce with the Near East was placed
on a very precarious foundation. On the other hand, they
could hardly maintain a sufficient fleet in the Mediterranean
to insure the safety of their merchantmen. To pay tribute,
or to give efficient protection to the merchant marine entailing

2o6 THOMAS JEFFERSON

expenditure of sums easily as large as the tribute, or else to
give up the Mediterranean trade, were the only solutions to
be considered.^

The first solution was absolutely repugnant to Jefferson.
“When this idea comes across my mind, my faculties are
absolutely suspended between indignation and impatience.” ^

He therefore approached Vergennes to sound him on his
intention and to determine whether it would not be possible
to establish a permanent blockade of Algiers. Although Ad-
miral d’Estaing was in favor of the plan and thought it per-
fectly feasible, the prudent diplomat did not give Jefferson
much encouragement. But in spite of the instructions sent
by his government and the pressure exerted by Adams, who
thought it cheaper to buy peace, Jefferson’s preference for war
remained entire. With his characteristic obstinacy, he tried
another approach and thought it possible to organize a con-
federation of all the nations interested in the Mediterranean
trade, in order to maintain an international blockade before
the ports of the pirates and thus paralyze their operations.
He explained his plan in detail to Adams and even drew up the
articles of confederation.^

At this juncture he took Lafayette into his confidence as he
had already done so many times, and discussed the situation
with him. The Marquis saw at once another opportunity to
be of service to America. He had hardly left Jefferson’s house
before the idea came to his mind that he could offer his services
as chief of the operations against the Barbary pirates, and he
wrote at once to Jefferson to that effect ^ That the project did
not come to completion was due to many causes and to a large
extent to Adams’ opposition, as may be inferred from a letter

* JeSerson to Monroe, May lo, 1786. Memorial. Edition, V, 327.

“ To Major General Greene, January 12, 1786. Ihd , V, 246

’ " Autobiography ”, Ibid., I, 97 and July 11, 1786, Ibid, V, 364.

* See my edition of the Jefferson Lafayette correspondence, chapter II. Paris,
Baltunure, 1929.

- ■L ’ J I

LATAYETTE

After (1 lithograph from the portrait bv Grevedon

UNION AND ISOLATION 207

written by Lafayette to his “Dear General” during the fall of
1786,’- but most of aU to lack of cooperation between the Euro-
pean powers ; and during the rest of his mission Jefferson had
to restrict himself to making arrangements in order to obtain
the release of the American captives.

On the other hand, if it was evident that Europe was un-
v/illing to cooperate with America in the Mediterranean, it was
not so certain that France, England, and Spain had given up
their ambitious designs on the New World, and Jefferson con-
sidered it his duty to forestall any attempt of theirs to develop
or reestablish colonies on the American continent.

As far as France was concerned, she had given up aU claims
to her former colonies by the Treaty of AUiance signed on
February 6, 1778, but there always remauied the possibility
that she might attempt to settle on the western coast of the
American continent and thus take possession of the back door
of the country. The preparations made for “La Peyrouse’s
voyage to the South Seas” aroused strong suspicions in Jeffer-
son’s mind. He could not be persuaded that the French were
in a position to spend so much money “ merely for the improve-
ment of the geography of that part of the globe.” They cer-
tainly had some ulterior aims, at least that of establishing fur-
trading stations on the western coast, as a first step towards
regular colonization; and “if they should desire a colony on
the western side of America, I should not be quite satisfied
that they would refuse one which should offer itself on the east-
ern side,” wrote Jefferson to Jay. So, to ascertain the true
nature of the expedition, he commissioned Paul Jones to go to
Brest “to satisfy himself of the nature of the expedition ; con-
ducting himself so as to excite no suspicion.” * This was not a
very important incident in itself, but it is not impossible that
it attracted Jefferson’s attention to the western coast fifteen

'“Memoirs”, II, 148.

® To John Jay, August 14, 1785. Memorial Edition, V, 63.

208

THOMAS JEFFERSON

years before he sent out the Lewis and Clarke Expedition;
and his unwilhngness to permit France to obtain a footing even
in a very remote part of the continent is quite significant.

His fears of the colonizing designs of France were soon
allayed, but there remained England to consider, and England
still constituted the greatest potential danger for the United
States. While in America, Jefferson never manifested any
strong animosity against the British as a people, and even
expressed the hope that a reconciliation would follow the vic-
tory of American arms. Soon after coming to Europe, how-
ever, he had to admit that the commercial policy of Great
Britain was so obnoxious that the American hatred “against
Great Britain havmg lately received from that nation new
cause and new aliment, had taken a new spring.” Thus,
added Jefferson, “in spite of treaties, England is still our enemy.
Her hatred is deep rooted and cordial, and nothing is wanting
with her but the power to wipe us, and the land which we live
on out of existence,” The only hope of avoiding a new war
was to make Great Britain realize that her true interest lay in
some compromise, and that America had more energy than
she suspected. But all told it was “a conflict of dirty pas-
sions.” ^ Unfortunately the British were absolutely unrelent-
ing in their hostility :

, . . they keep a standing army of newswriters formally engaged
in war against America. They dwell very much on American bank-
ruptcies — and thus worked to such good effect that by destroying
America’s credit they checked her disposition to luxury ; and forcing
our merchants to buy no more than they have ready money to pay
for, they force them to go to those markets where that money will
buy most.®

' To Baron GeJsmer, September 6, 1785. Memorial Edition, V, 128.

* To John Langdon, September II, 17S5. Ihid., V, 13 1.

^ To Count Hogendoip, October 13, 1783. IHi., V, 1S2.

UNION AND ISOLATION 209

Jefferson’s tour in England only confirmed him in his views,
for

that nation hate us, their ministers hate us, and their King more
than all other men. They have the impudence to avow this, though
they acknowledge our trade important to them. . . . They say
they will pocket our carrying trade as well as their own. Our over-
tures of commercial arrangements have been treated with a derision,
which shows their firm persuasion, that we shall never unite to sup-
press their commerce, or even to impede it. I think their hostility
towards us is much more deeply rooted at present than during the
war.^

To Dumas, the financial agent at the Hague, he reiterated
his views that “the English are still our enemies.” He even
predicted war, a war which would renew the scenes of Rome and
Carthage ; “Peace and friendship with all mankind is our wisest
policy; and I wish we may be permitted to pursue it. But
the temper and folly of our enemies may not leave this in our
choice.” ^

Finally the Spanish colonies in America constituted another
source of danger. Jefferson was confident that Spain would
never be in a position to conduct a war of aggression against
the United States ; but being a weak country and embroiled
in European affairs, her colonies might be used at any time as
mere pawns in the rmscrupulous game of European politics.
In these circumstances the attitude the United States should
observe in their relations with the Spanish colonies was to be
seriously considered. A curious illustration of the fears and
schemes which passed at that time through Jefferson’s mind is
found in an episode of his Southern journey during the preced-
ing year. The gist of his conversation with a Brazilian he met
at Montpellier was that an important group of colonists were
ready to follow the example of the United States and proclaim

^ To John Page, May 4, 1786. Memorial Edition, V, 306.

To Dumas, May 6, 1786, Ibid., V, 309.

210

THOMAS JEFFERSON

their independence of the mother country. But as Portugal
was certain to join forces with Spain in repressing such a revo-
lution, the Brazilian patriots had decided not to undertake
anything before securing the assistance of some other coun-
try. The thinking part of the population had naturally
thought of the United States. “They would want cannons,
ammunition, ships, sailors, soldiers and officers, for which they
are disposed to look to the United States, it being always
understood that every service and furniture will be well paid.”
The answer of Jefferson to that alluring proposition, contains
more than one interesting point :

I took care to impress on him, through the whole of our conversa-
tion, that I had neither instructions nor authority to say a word to
anybody on this subject, and that I could only give him my own
ideas, as a single individual; which were, that we were not in a
condition at present to meddle nationally in any war; that we
wished particularly to cultivate the friendship of Portugal, with
whom we have an advantageous commerce. That yet a successful
revolution in Brazil could not be uninteresting to us. That pros-
pects of lucre might possibly draw numbers of individuals to their
aid, and purer motives our officers, among whom are many excellent.
That our citizens being free to leave their own country individually,
without the consent of their governments, are equally free to go to
any other.^

Amusingly enough, Jefierson evidently believed that he had
displayed a remarkable caution during the whole conversa-
tion. It is doubtful that such would have been the opinion of
the Portuguese Government had his letter to Jay been inter-
cepted, and one may wonder what he would have said if he
had really intended to encourage a revolution in the Portuguese
colonies. With a Mexican who made a similar inquiry he was
somewhat more reserved. He had observed that the gentle-
man was “intimate at the Spanish Ambassador’s” and sus-

^ To John Jay, May 4, lyS;. Memorial Edition, VI, 119.

UNION AND ISOLATION 211

pected that he might be a spy. He was therefore “still more
cautious with him than with the Brazilian” ; mentioning
simply that “a successful revolution was still at a distance with
them ” : that he feared “they must begin by enlightening
and emancipating the minds of their people.” He finally
recalled that the British papers had mentioned during the late
war an insurrection in Peru “which had cost two hundred thou-
sand lives, on both sides ! ” — a figure not to be taken too
literally.

During the course of a year, however, Jefferson’s views
underwent a remarkable change. In May, 1788, he men-
tioned to Carmichael his suspicions that a Spanish squadron
had been sent to South America in order to quell an incipient
revolt started at the instigation of the British. This placed
the situation in an entirely different light. The United States
would have very little to gam if a weak neighbor were dis-
placed by a powerful and treacherous nation. He conse-
quently requested his colleagues to reassure the Spanish Court
that the United States would not favor in any way a revolt of
the Spanish colonies in the New World, for “ those who look into
futurity farther than the present moment or age, and who com-
bine well what is, with what is to be, must see that our iu-
terests, well understood, and our wishes are, that Spam shall
(not forever, but) very long retain her possessions in that
quarter ; and that her views and ours must, in a good degree,
and for a long time concur.” ^

This is the more important as it already defines the position
taken by Jefferson twelve years later during the negotiations
concerning the Louisiana Purchase. It is also a reiteration
■of that desire of isolation which constituted the cardinal pria-
ciple of American foreign policies and which had been enun-
ciated in the Treaty of Alliance concluded with France in 1778.
Jefferson had not originated the principle, since this article of

* To Carmichael, May nj, 1788. Memorial Edition, VII, 27.

212

THOMAS JEFFERSON

the Treaty of Alliance was due to Adams, but his direct and
prolonged contact with European afiairs had strengthened in
hirn the instinctive conviction that it was the only wise course
for America to follow. If he had felt free to indulge in his own
theory, he would have gone even further than any of his con-
temporaries for, as he wrote in 1785, “I should wish the United
States to practice neither commerce, nor navigation, but to
stand, with respect to Europe, precisely on the footing of
China.” Unfortunately, this was only a theory and the serv-
ants of the country were not at liberty to follow it, since
“Americans have a decided taste for navigation and com-
merce.” Being on a mission to protect and further the com-
merce of his fellow countrymen, Jefferson consequently thought
it his duty to forget for the time being his personal preferences.
In a similar way, although he strongly believed in free trade
and would have seen no objection to “throwing open all the
doors of commerce, and knocking its shackles”, he realized
that such an ideal condition could not be reached unless the
European powers granted similar treatment to American goods.
He therefore came to the conclusion that, “as this cannot be
done for others, unless they will do it for us, and there is no
great probability that Europe will do this, we shall be obliged
to adopt a system which may shackle them in our ports, as they
do in theirs.” ^

We have here another striking instance of the close parti-
tioning established by Jefferson between theory and practice,
between his wishes as a political philosopher, and his concep-
tion of his duties as a public servant. Far from being a single-
track mind, his was decidedly a double-track intellect, with
two lines of thought running parallel without any apparent
contradiction, for theory never seemed to have interfered
with his practice. When a month later he wrote to W. W.
Seward about the future of commercial relations between

^To Count Hagendori, October ly. ijSs. Memorial Edition, V, i8i.

UNION AND ISOLATION

213

Ireland and America, he excellently defined his position by say-
ing that “the system into which the United States wishes to
go, was that of freeing commerce from every shackle. A con-
trary conduct in Great Britain will occasion them to adopt a
contrary system, at least as to that island.” ^

There is probably nothing in this to astonish the man in the
street, either in Washington or in London, for it seems to be a
curious quality of the Anglo-Saxon mind to be able to pursue
a very practical and hard-headed policy, while keeping its
belief in disinterested and idealistic principles. Yet it may
not be out of place to mention that this is the very reason why
both England and America have so often been accused of hy-
pocrisy by European public opinion. Without attempting
to justify all the foreign policies of the United States on that
score, it may be said that in this particular case there was no
hypocrisy. Jefierson made no attempt whatever to conceal
the difference that existed between his theory and his prac-
tice; he even called attention to it. He did not attempt to
color unpleasant reality with idealistic camouflage, and gave
the European nations a chance to choose between two entirely
different courses. He would rather have chosen to follow the
more liberal system, but he gave due notice that if it came to
plajdng the game of real politics, America could be just as
practical and firm in insisting upon her rights as any nation
of the Old World.

The millennium had not yet arrived ; and America, in spite
of her peaceful attitude, might be caught at any time in Euro-
pean “commotions.” While maintaining a policy of strict
aloofness, it would have been foolish and ostrich-like for her
to ignore that danger, and it became the strict duty of those
in power to keep close watch on political developments in the
Old World. Such is the conclusion reached by Jefferson as
a result of his observations, and in a letter to E. Carrington

' November iz, 1785. Memorial Edition, V, 202 .

214

THOMAS JEFFERSON

he outlined a policy of watchful waiting to which Woodrow
Wilson himself would have subscribed ;

I often doubt whether I should trouble Congress or my friends
with these details of European pohtics. I know they do not excite
that interest in America, of which it is impossible for one to divest
himself here. I know, too, that it is a maxim with us, and I think it
is a wise one, not to entangle ourselves with the affairs of Europe.
Still I think, we should know them. The Turks have practiced
the same maxim of not meddling in the complicated wrangles of
this continent. But they have unwisely chosen to be ignorant of
them also, and it is this total ignorance of Europe, its combinations
and its movements, which exposes them to that annihilation possibly
about to take place. While there are powers in Europe which fear
our views, or have views on us, we should keep an eye on them, their
connections and opposition, that in a moment of need, we may avail
ourselves of their weakness with respect to others as well as our-
selves, and calculate their designs and movements, on all the circum-
stances under which they exist. Though I am persuaded, therefore,
that these details are read by many with great indifference, yet I
think it my duty to enter into them, and to run the risk of giving too
much, rather than too little information.*

Watchful waiting, no political entanglements, unofficial
observers — everything is here and this page could have been
written ten years ago or yesterday. It is sometimes said that
America, being a young and inexperienced nation, has had no
time to develop traditions, but it may be wondered whether
any other nation could be found wliich, after defining so clearly
the essentials of a policy, has adhered to them so persistently
for a century and a half. There is no doubt, at any rate, that
once again Jefferson, although he did not originate the theory,
formulated it with his usual felicity of expression, and thus
contributed toward giving America what Descartes would
have called her "maxims of action.”

1 December 21, 1787, Memorial Edition, Vt, 396 ; see also letter to John Jay, May 4,
1737. Ibid., Vi, 122.

CHAPTER IV

JEFFERSON AND THE FRENCH REVOLUTION

Jeeeerson has often been represented, both by his enemies
and friends, as the American exponent of the theories of the
French Revolution. The possible influence exerted upon the
development of his political philosophy by French thought
has been the subject of lengthy discussions and probably will
never be determined with any degree of exactness. It is veiy
difficult to see how a man of his character could have remained
in Paris for more than five years without participating in some
manner in the great battle of theories which preceded the
French Revolution. He associated with Lafayette and his
group of "republicans”, exchanged some correspondence with
Condorcet, frequently saw Abb6 Morellet, was introduced by
Benjamin Franklin to Madame Helvetius and her coterie ;
he worked with Du Pont de Nemours on commercial questions,
subscribed to papers and gazettes and to the “ Encyclopedie
M4thodique”, a continuation and systematization of Diderot’s
“Encyclopedie.”

But when all is said, the most carefrfl scrutiny of the letters
he wrote during that period fails to reveal any enthusiasm or
even any endorsement of the many and somewhat contradictory
political doctrines which were preached in France at the time.
I do not even see that his prolonged sojourn in France modified
to any extent the conclusions he had already reached independ-
ently in the “Notes on Virginia.” When he arrived in Paris
he was over forty and had been in public life for almost fifteen
years ; he had written not only the Declaration of Independence
but many reports on vital questions; he had participated

2i6 THOMAS JEFFERSON

actively and for several years in the deliberations of the Virginia
Assembly and of the Congress of the United States and he had
been chief executive of his native State. Such a man was not
a student coming to Paris to sit at the feet of French masters ;
he was considered by the French themselves, not only as a
master but as the apostle of the religion of liberty.^ They
looked up to him for advice and help, for he had over them the
great superiority of having been more than a simple theorizer ;
he had contributed to a great movement of liberation ; he was
the promoter of the Bill for Religious Freedom ; he had pro-
posed a complete plan of public education and he had pro-
claimed in a national document the inviolable rights of man.
They had much to learn from Jefferson and he was not reluc-
tant to teach them, but he never felt that his French friends
could repay him in kind. On the other hand, it cannot be
denied that he was very happy to find enunciated in a very
clear and logical way some of his favorite ideas ; it is equally
certain that France was to him a living demonstration and a
sort of horrible example of all the evils caused by aristocratic,
monarchical, and ecclesiastical oppressions. His sojourn in
France had at least the effect of making him more intensely,
more proudly American than he was before sailing, and more
convinced than ever of the unsurpassed superiority of the
civilization which had already developed on the northern con-
tinent of the New World.

This sentiment appears even during the first year of his stay
in Paris in a letter to Mrs. Trist :

It is difficult to conceive how so good a people, with so good a
king, so well-disposed rulers in general, so genial a climate, so fertile
a soil, should be rendered so ineffectual for producing human happi-
ness by one single curse — that of a bad form of government. But
it is a fact in spite of the mildness of their governors, the people are
ground to powder by the vices of the form of government. Of

1 See "Les Amities Fransaises de Madame d’Houdetot.” Paris, 1925.

THE FRENCH REVOLUTION

217

twenty millions of people supposed to be in France, I am of opinion
there are nineteen millions more wretched, more accursed, in every
circumstance of human existence, than the most conspicuously
wretched individual of the whole United States. . . . Nourish
peace with their persons, but war against their manners. Every
step we take towards the adoption of their manners is a step to
perfect misery.'

This was no passing mood ; a few weeks earlier he had written
much more vehemently to his friend and “ cleve”, James Monroe,
engaging him to come to France in order to see for himself the
extraordinary superiority of America over Europe and par-
ticularly France.

It will make you adore your own country, it’s soil, it’s climate,
it’s equality, liberty, laws, people & manners. My God! how
little do ray country men know what precious blessings they are in
possession of, and which no other people on earth enjoy. I confess
I had no idea of it myself. While we shall see multiplied instances of
Europeans going to live in America, I wiU venture to say no man now
living will ever see an instance of an American removing to settle in
Europe & continuing there.^

But unhappy as they are, the French are lovable, for he loved
them with all his heart and thought that, “ with a better religion,
a better form of government and their present Governors, their
condition and country would be most enviable.” At any rate
they were to be preferred to the "rich, proud, hectoring, swear-
ing, squibbling, carnivorous animals who lived on the other
side of the Channel.” ^

At the beginning of his stay, Jefferson paid little attention to
the internal affairs of the country; the only incident worth
comment during his first year in Paris was the imprisonment of
the chief editor of the Journal de Paris who was sent to the
Bastille, perhaps to end his days there :

* To Mrs. Trist. Paris, August 18, 1783. “Domestic Life”, p. 79.

“ To James Monroe, April is, 1785. Ford, IV, 59.

® To Abigail Adams, June 21, 1785. Ibid., IV, 59.

2i8 THOMAS JEFFERSON

Thus — wrote he — you see the value of energy in Government
for such a measure, which would have been wrapt in the flames of
war and desolation in America, ends without creating the slightest
disturbance. Every attempt to criticize even mildly the govern-
ment is followed immediately by stern measures, suppressing the
London papers, suppressing the Leyden Gazelle, imprisoning Beau-
marchais, and imprisoning the editor of the Journal, the author
of the Mercure, etc.^

It is not until February, 1786, that he gave hints, quite
incidentally, that the situation might become critical and that
serious disturbances might be feared for the future.

But he did not see an3rwhere any immediate danger of a
political commotion and during that year he continued to repeat
in his letters that “Europe was very quiet for the present.”
As a matter of fact, he had come to the conclusion that the case
of the Old World was hopeless ; they were past redemption
and, “if the Almighty had begotten a thousand sons, instead
of one, they would not have sufficed for this task. If aU the
sovereigns of Europe undertook to emancipate the minds of
their subjects, a thousand years would not place them on that
high ground on wlrich our common people are now setting out.”
France has become a horrible example to place constantly
before the eyes of America, to remind her that the most impor-
tant factor for the happiness of the people is the diffusion of
common knowledge that wiU enable them to preserve them-
selves from kings, nobles, and priests, for it is impossible to
imagine a people of more pleasant dispositions, more made for
happiness, surrounded by so many blessings of nature, and yet
“loaded with misery by kings, nobles, and priests, and by them
alone.” ^

Never before had Jefferson been so vehement in his denun-
ciations of kingly and priestly usurpations, never had he been

^To Mrs. Adivms, July 7, 1785. Ford, t'/, 68.

’ To George Wythe, August 13, 1786. it/ui , IV, 268-369.

THE FRENCH REVOLUTION 219

so positive of the necessity of preserving American civilization
from any foreign influences. But again this is not with him an
a priori view, it is the result of his observations more than of
his theories.

He was confiimed in his hatred of the French regime by his
conversations with Latude, who “comes sometimes to take
family soup with me, & entertains me with anecdotes of his
five & thirty years imprisonment, all of which for having written
four lines on Madame de Pompadour.” ^

In a letter to Washington already quoted, hut capital for the
history of his mind, he remarked that before coming to Europe
he had not even begun to suspect the evils of monarchical
government; what he saw there brought home to him the
conviction that “ as long as a single fibre of it would remain in
America, the scourge that is rendering existence a scourge to
24 out of 25 parts of the inhabitants of this country might
break out.” ^

As late as 1787 he was still persuaded that under pretence of
governing, the ruling classes have divided the nations into two
classes, wolves and sheep : “But what can the sheep do against
the wolves except to submit, to suffer without any hope of ever
changing the established order.” ®

His first mention of the possibility of introducing some
modification in the existing order does not occur before he
heard of the convocation of the Assembly of the Notables
“which had not been done for one hundred and sixty years” ;
but this interests him only mildly at the beginning, as nothing
certain could be known about the program of the Assembly
A few days later he admitted to Colonel Edward Carrington
that “this event which will hardly excite any attention in
America is deemed here the most important one which has

' To Mrs. Maria Cosway, October 12, 1786. Ford, IV, 323.

* November, 1786. Ibid., IV, 328.

’ To Edward Carrington. January r6, 1787. Ibid,VI,$si-

< To J. Jay, January 9, 1787 Memorial E^tion, VI, 45,

220

THOMAS JEFFERSON

taken place in their civil life during the present century.”
But his only real interest in it was that Lafayette had finally
been put on the list and was the youngest of the Notables but
one.^ He felt that it was his duty to attend the first meeting
of the Notables, and still more to pay his call to the new min-
ister Montmorin — the only thing that detained him in Paris,
and when he wrote to John Adams and Jay to describe the
inaugural session opened by the king, he restricted himself to
a dry recital of facts. With a prince of the blood at the head
of each committee, he did not expect great results from the
convocation and was skeptical about the efiiciency of the mem-
bers.^ Just as he was leaving Paris for his long extensive trip
to the South of France, he thought, however, of sending a last
word of advice to Lafayette whose republican ideas he evidently
feared. It was a counsel of prudence. Whatever may have
been his sympathies for the repubheans, in his opinion France
was not ready for a complete change in her system of govern-
ment.

Least of aU was she ready for a democratic experiment.
Consequently Jefferson, the American patriot, the enemy of
England, the alleged hater of aristocracies, advised his friend
“to proceed step by step, towards a good constitution, keeping
the good model of your neighboring country before your eyes.
Though that model is not perfect, yet, as it would unite more
suffrages than any new one which could be proposed, it is better
to make that the object.

“You see how we Republicans are apt to preach”, he said
in conclusion ; but his letter was more than a sermon ; it con-
tained also the advice of a shrewd and very practical politician
who recommended that every possible effort be made to give the
king what he wanted in the way of personal expenses. “If
every advance is to be purchased by filling the royal coffers

* JauTOty x6, 1787. Memorial Edition, VI,

® February 33, 1787. £bid., VI, 99.

IHE FRENCH REVOLUTION

221

with gold, it will be gold well employed. The King who means
so well, should be encouraged to repeat those Assemblies.” ^

That was aU he could say, and even so he had probably said
too much, for it was a risky thing for a diplomat to write about
or to discuss at all. Jefferson was certainly guilty of trespassing
on a province that constituted an essential part of the internal
politics of the kingdom. And yet the charge of plotting against
the existing government cannot be laid at his door. As long
as he remained in France, and I believe, even after he came back
to America, he carefully refrained from giving any encourage-
ment to those of his French friends who held radical views.
He was caught in the torrent and, as we shall see later, did
not always observe the reticence of an old-fashioned diplomat ;
but whatever influence he exerted was exerted in order to
maintain rather than to overthrow the existing order of things.

During his trip he observed the condition of the peasants and,
much to his surprise, found among them a smaller degree of
poverty than he had expected ; but if he made observations and
entered many minute facts in his diary, he did not come to any
conclusion nor did he seem to have been interested by the state
of mind of the people. He had judged them once for all, he
knew that they were priest-ridden and lord-ridden and did
not see how any real reform might originate from them. Once,
however, but only once, did he indicate that he had paid serious
attention to the work before the Assembly. Writing to Lafay-
ette’s aunt, Madame de Tesse, in the evident expectation that
she would communicate his ideas to the proper persons, he drew
up an almost complete plan of administrative reforms; To
have frequent meetings of the Assembly of Notables; the
Assembly to be divided into two houses — the Noblesse and
the Commons ; the Conunons to be taken from those chosen
by the people for provincial administrations ; the number of
deputies for the Nobility to be reduced. These two Houses so

I Febiuaiy 28, 1787. Memorial Edition, VI, loi.

222

THOMAS JEFFERSON

elected “would make the King great and the people happy.”
And the next sentence expresses very cleverly, too cleverly
perhaps, that this innocuous reform would in fact be a sort of
revolution, the name of which would be avoided. “They
would thus put themselves in the track of the best guide they
can follow (the king) ; they would soon overtake it, become its
guide in turn, and lead to the wholesome modifications want-
ing in that model, and necessary to constitute a rational govern-
ment.” 'What he had in mind at the time was a sort of govern-
ment following very closely the lines of the British, not as an
ideal but as a temporary measure ; for before the eyes of his
friends he held another prospect. But for the present that
was the maximum they could wisely expect; “should they
attempt more than the established habits of the people are ripe
for, they may lose all, and retard indefinitely the ultimate
object of their aim.” ^

Co mm erce more than politics absorbed aU his attention when
he came back from his trip. He found time, however, to send
to Madison his first estimate of the king and queen, a most
xmfiattering por1;rait of poor Louis XVI.

The King loves business, economy, order, and Justice, and wishes
sincerely the good of his people ; but he is irascible and rude, very
limited in his understanding, and religious, bordering on bigotry.
He has no mistress, loves his queen, and is too much governed by
her. She is capricious like her brother, and governed by him :
devoted to pleasure and expense; and not remarkable for any
other vices or virtues. Unhappily the King shows a propensity for
the pleasures of the table. That for drink has increased lately, or,
at least, it has become more known.®

It was not until August that he summed up in a letter to
Monroe the great improvements in the constitution of the
French effected by the Assemblies des Notables. He was sur-

* March 20, 1787. Memorial Edition, VI, loj.

’ To James Madison, June 20, 1787. Ibid., VI, 134.

THE FRENCH REVOLUTION

223

prised at the great explosion of joy, which he thought unwar-
ranted; for after all, even the unexampled boldness of the
enemies of the regime was nothing but the “follies of nations
in their dotage.” ^ Yet writing to John Jay the next day he
took a more serious view of things and declared “It is evident,
I think, that a spirit of this country is advancing towards a
revolution in their constitution. There are not wanting persons
at the helm, friends to the progress of this spirit. The Pro-
vincial Assemblies will be the most probable instrument of
effecting it,” ^

Eut it is primarily from the American point of view that he
continues to be interested, and he becomes more and more
convinced that, “with aU its defects, and with all those of our
particular governments, the inconveniences resulting from them,
are so light in comparison with those existing in every other
government on earth that our citizens may certainly be con-
sidered as in the happiest political situation which exists.” ®
With more intimate friends he was far more violent and out-
spoken, as in the letter he wrote the same day to Colonel Hum-
phreys. It is seldom he indulges in these outbursts of passion-
ate invective, so seldom that it may be wondered whether his
expression is not stronger than his thought :

From these events, our young Republic may learn useful lessons,
never to call on foreign powers to settle their differences, to guard
against hereditary magistrates, to prevent their citizens from be-
coming so established in wealth and power, as to be thought worthy
of alliance . . in short to besiege the throne of heaven with eternal
prayers, to extirpate from creation this class of human lions, tigers,
and mammoths called Kings ; from whom, let him perish who does
not say, “good Lord deliver us!” '*

He had caught something of the general fever, and he drew
a vivid picture of Paris with crowds surromding the “Parlia-

' August s, 1787, Memorial Edition. VI, 23$. * Ibid., VI, 247.

* To Washington, August 14, 1787. Ibid , VI, 276.

* August 14, 1787. Ibid., VI, 27g.

224

THOMAS JEFFERSON

ment House ”, stopping carriages in the queen’s livery, mdulging
in bans mots, caricatures, “collecting in mobs, and yet the
King, long in the habit of drowning his cares in wine, plunges
deeper and deeper. The Queen cries, but sins on”, and the
only practical result one can see is that “all tongues in Paris
and in France have been let loose,” ^ The same note is given
six weeks later in a letter to John Jay. “The King goes for
nothing. He hunts one half of the day, is drimk the other, and
signs whatever he is bid.” * Even the reforms, the most impor-
tant from the point of view of the French, seem to him insignifi-
cant, and when the edict on the Protestants appears, it is
crueUy analyzed by the American minister ;

It is an acknowledgement that Protestants can beget children,
and that they can die, and be offensive unless buried. It does not
give them permission to think, to speak, or to worship. . . . What
are we to thmk of the condition of the human mind in a country,
where such a wretched thing as this throws the State into convul-
sions, and how must we bless our own situation in a country, the
most illiterate peasant of which is a Solon, compared with the
authors of this law.^

When he wrote his “Autobiography”, Jefferson used very
extensively not only the notes he had taken when in Paris but
the press copies of his correspondence, and on the whole gave an
accurate picture of the events that immediately preceded the
French Revolution — those he had witnessed before his depar-
ture from Paris, in October, 17S9. But, true as the picture may
be, it is not progressive, and here we aim not to trace again the
main episodes of the French Revolution, but the development
of Jefferson’s mind, his reaction towards the events. Most of
all we must seek to find out from contemporary evidence
whether the old accusation laimched by Gouvemeur Morris,

^ To John Adams, Augvist 30, 1787. Memorial Edition, VI, 287.

’ October 8, 1787. Ibid., VI, 338.

’ To William Rutledge, February 2, 1788. Ibid., Vl, 417.

THE FRENCH REVOLUTION

225

seized upon eagerly by Jefferson’s enemies, and since repeated
again and again, is in any way justified.

We have already seen that, with a corrupted court, a weak
king, a selfish and ignorant queen, the only remedy he recom-
mended at first was for the French not to reconquer their lib-
erties by force and by a revolution, but gradually to buy them
from the king. Yet he foresaw that the nobility would make
a sort of alliance with the people, that is to say the Hers Mat,
in order to get money from them, and he held the rather C3mical
view that “ Courtiers had rather give up power than pleasures ;
they will barter, therefore, the usurped prerogatives of the King,
for the money of the people. This is the agent by which modern
nations will recover their rights.” ^ This is written, not to Jay
in a confidential letter, but to a French liberal of his acquaint-
ance, and that practical piece of advice caimot be called phil-
osophical. Altogether the results reached by the Assemblde
des Notables were small and the king terribly slow to see the
light. So for a long time Jefferson refused not only to encourage
but even to admit that he was witnessing the beginnings of a
true revolution. Writing to Rutledge in July, 1788, he declared
“That the struggle in this country is, as yet, of doubtful issue.
It is, in fact, between the monarchy and the parliaments. The
nation is no otherwise concerned, but as both parties may be
induced to let go some of its abuses, to court the public favor.
The danger, is that the people deceived by a false cry of liberty,
may be led to take sides with one party, and thus give the other
a pretext for crushing them still more.” ^ Writing to Cutting
a few days later he was more optimistic. Most of the late inno-
vations had been much for the better ; a convocation of the
States-General could not be avoided ; “ it will produce a na-
tional assembly meeting at certain epochs, possessing at first a
negative on the laws, but which will grow into the right of

‘To De Moustier, May 17, 1788. Memorial Edition, VH, 13.

•July 18, 1788. /Hd.Vn, 81,

226 THOMAS JEFFERSON

original legislation. Much could be hoped from the States-
General and it was also to be hoped that all this will be effected
without convulsion.” ^

Such was his confident expectation. He foresaw “that
within two or three years this country will be in the enjoyment
of a tolerably free constitution, and that without its having cost
them a drop of blood.” ^

To Carmichael he described his own attitude as that of a
bystander, not otherwise interested, but entertaining a sincere
love for the nation in general and a wish to see their happiness
promoted, “keeping myself clear of the particular views and
passions of individuals.” ^ Had he felt differently he would
not have taken into his confidence a man for whom he felt no
particular friendship ; but, at that date at least, he could make
that statement without departing from the exact truth. As far
as contemporary evidence is concerned, it does not seem that
he ever urged his friends forward, but on the contrary he always
advised them to play a waiting game, and to keep from having
recourse to violence. About the middle of that year, 1788, he
toned down his severe estimate of the king, to whom he attrib-
uted “no foible which wffl enlist him against the good of his
people.” Calonne had been removed and Necker called in
as Director General of finance ; things were looking decidedly
better, a convocation of the States-General had been decided
upon ; the issue depended largely on three possible solutions :
whether the three orders would meet separately ; whether the
clergy and the nobility would form a house and the Commons
a second one ; or finally whether the three orders would meet
in one house which would give the majority to the Commons.
The choice was really thought incumbent upon the king, who
thus had the power to place the people on his side if he was wise

1 July 24, 1788 Memorial Edition, VII, 87.

’ To Colonel Monroe, August g, 1788. /Md , VU, 113.

’ August 12, 178S. find , Vn, 124

* To Cutting, August 23, 1788. ddid., VU, 131.

THE FRENCH REVOLUTION 227

enough to prefer to have on his side twenty-three millions and
a half instead of the other half million.^

At the end of 1788, with the convocation of the States-
General announced for the beginning of the following year, he
was stiU very optimistic, but he had not departed from his
cautious and reserved recommendations. The States could not
succeed if they asked too much, for the Commons would frighten
and shock the court and even alarm the public mind. If any
durable progress was to be accomplished, it would have to be
by degrees and successive improvements. Such probably
would be the course followed, imless an influence unaccount-
able, impossible to measure, and yet powerful entirely changed
the situation: “The fact that women visit alone persons in
ofi&ce, solicit in defiance of laws and regulations, is an ex-
traordinary obstacle to the betterment of things, unbelieveable
as it may be to the inhabitant of a country where the sex does
not endeavorrr to extend itself beyond the domestic line.” “

He did not even believe that any real reform could be accom-
plished beyond fixing periodical meetings of the States-General
and giving them the right to participate in the legislation and
to decide on taxes. They did not seem to be unanimously in
favor of the habeas corpus; as for the freedom of the press, —
“I hardly think the nation itself ripe to accept it.” ® This was
his prophecy at the beginning of 1789, and during the first
month of the year he had no occasion to express new views,
sin ce everybody was in the provinces “electioneering, choosing
or being chosen.” With his experience of Assemblies, however,
he could not help wondering how any result could be accom-
plished with a body which was to include some twelve hundred
persons and moreover to consist of Frenchmen, among whom
are always more speakers than listeners.^ In a letter to Thomas

' To Short, November 2, 1788 Memorial Edition, VII, 159.

® To Wasliington, December 4, 1788. Ihtd , VII, 228.

® To Doctor Currie, December 20, 1788. Mi., VII, 239.

* To Shippen, March 11, 1789. Ihtd , VIl, 291.

228 THOMAS JEFFERSON

Paine we find the first intimation that Jefferson began to be
influenced by the political thinkers of France or rather to dis-
cover in them a certain quality of thought and presentation
that make their work of some use for the American people.
They were at any rate much preferable to the Englishman,
who “slumbering under a kind of half reformation in politics
and religion, is not excited by anything he sees or feels, to
question the remains of prejudice. The writers of this country,
now taking the field freely and unrestrained, or rather involved
by prejudice, will rouse us all from the errors in which we have
been hitherto rocked.” ^ Taken in itself and without the con-
text this sentence would tend to indicate in Jefferson an almost
unreserved approval of the doctrines of the radical reformers and
of the very spirit of the French Revolution, but as is so often
the case with him, the real meaning is hidden in the last part.
It was not so much in their theoretical views he was interested
as in the fact that “their logical presentation, might be used in
America to overcome the last resistance to the establishment of
a true republican regime free from any vestige of monarchical
order.” But that he hoped that such radical reforms could suc-
ceed in F ranee is not indicated. His complete thought is far bet-
ter expressed in the letter written the next day to Humphreys :

The writings published on this occasion are, some of them, very
valuable; because, unfettered by the prejudices under which
Englishmen labor, they give a full scope to reason, and strike out
truths, as yet unperceived and unacknowledged on the other side of
the channel. ... In fine, I believe this nation will, in the course
of the present year, have as full a portion of liberality dealt out to
them, as the nation can bear at present, considering how uninformed
the mass of their people is.^

On the other hand, to believe that they would be able to
establish a truly representative and free government was cer-
tainly inconceivable to him at this date. To the last moment

> Match 1 7, i78g. Memorial Edition, VII, 317, ’ Ibid,, VII, 321.

THE FRENCH REVOLUTION

229

he hoped that some sort of an agreement would be possible
between the nobility and the Commons, for he had decided very
early that no confidence should be placed in the clergy. He
was lookmg forward to a close cooperation between the younger
part of the nobility and the Commons, who, working together
with the king, would seek the support of the people and accom-
plish important reforms. No fundamental change however
could be expected, smce the French refused to show any interest
in the most vital question of trial by jury.

But as soon as the States-General were opened he realized
that he had been too optimistic. Since the “Noblesse" would
not yield and wanted their delegates to do their dirty work
for them, the only manly stand to take for a man like Lafayette,
who although of liberal opinion had solicited and obtained a
mandate from the nobility, was to go over wholly to the tiers
etat. The opening of the States-General was as imposing as
an opera but it was poor business,^ and even at that time Jeffer-
son placed his confidence in the king who grew astonishingly
in his estimation during this year : “Happy that he is an honest,
unambitious man who desires neither money nor power for
himself ; and that his most operative minister (Necker), though
he has appeared to trim a little, is still, in the main, a friend to
public liberty.” ®

As the deadlock continued, the three orders sitting separately
without being able to settle the “great parliamentary question
whether they would vote by orders or by persons”, Jefferson
favored more and more the only solution which, in his opinion,
could prevent complete failure, — a triumph of despotism or
a sort of civil war :

This third hypothesis which I shall develop, because I like it, and
wish it, and hope it, is that as soon as it shall be manifest that the

* To Lafayette, May 6, 1788. Memorial Edition, VTI, 334. To Carmichael, May 8,
1788. Ibid., VII, 337.

® To John Jay, May 9, 1789. Ibid., VII, 345.

230

THOMAS JEFFERSON

committees of conciliation, now appointed by the three chambers,
shall be able to agree in nothing, the Tiers will invite the other two
orders to come and take their seats in the common chamber, A
majority of the Clergy will come, and the minority of the Noblesse.
The chamber thus composed, will declare that the States General
are now constituted, will notify it to the King, and propose to do
business^

At this juncture, Jefferson, in his anxiety to effect a satis-
factory compromise, broke all diplomatic precedence ; he could
not and did not wish to write a French Declaration of Independ-
ence ; but he could at least propose some form of government
which would recognize the fundamental rights of the French
citizen while preserving the appearance of the old monarchy.
He therefore drew up a “ Charter of Rights for the King and
Nation” and sent it, not only to Lafayette, but also to Rabaud
de Saint Etienne, a prominent defender of the newly reinstated
Protestants. In view of the developments that took place
later, Jefferson’s proposal does not seem revolutionary. At
that time, however (Jime 3, 1789), it went much farther than
the Court was willing to go. No appeal to abstract principle
and no mention of rights was made. The main provisions con-
sisted of an annual meeting of the Stales-General, which alone
had the right to levy taxes and to appropriate money; the
abolishment of aU privileges, a sort of habeas corpus, the sub-
ordination of the military to the civil authority and liberty of
the press. In order to induce the king to accept these new
charters, aU debts already contracted by him became the debts
of the nation, and he was to receive a sum of eighty million
livres to be raised by a loan. Thus Jefferson was attempting
to put into effect the advice he had several times given his
French friends ; to buy their liberty from the king rather than
bring about a revolution. I leave it to others to judge of the
morality of the expedient. Certainly it was not in accord with

' To Crevecoeur, May so, lySg. Memorial Edition, VTI, 368.

THE FRENCH REVOLUTION

231

the old battle cry of Patrick Henry. But once more Jefferson
was consistent in so much as he had always maintained that
what was good for America was not necessarily good for France.
Moreover, he knew there was no need to stir up the spirit of
the Assembly by inflammatory declarations. More than any
incitement to take radical steps they needed a dose of cool
common sense.

Unfortunately the man at the helm (Necker) “had neither
skill nor courage; ambition was his first passion, virtue his
second, his judgement was not of the first order not even of the
second”, and the ship continued to drift in the storm. On
June 18, 1789, Jefferson wrote a long letter to Madison, to indi-
cate the situation of the different parties after the Commons
had proclaimed themselves the National Assembly on the
fifteenth. His characterization even to-day seems remarkably
clear and disinterested. He sided decidedly with the Commons
who had in their chamber almost all the talents of the nation ;

They are firm, bold, yet moderate. There is, indeed, among
them, a number of very hot-headed members ; but those of most
influence ate cool, temperate and sagacious. . . . The Noblesse
on the contrary, are absolutely out of their senses. They are so
furious, they can seldom debate at all. . . . The Clergy are waiting
to profit by every incident, to secure themselves, and have no other
object in view.

Jefferson, however, paid tribute to the cures who, throughout
the kingdom, formed the mass of the clergy : “ they are the only
part favorably known to the people, because solely charged
with the duties of baptism, burials, confession, visitation of
the sick, instruction of the children, and aiding the poor, they
are themselves of the people, and united with thena.” ^ The
letter to Jay of June 24 is a day-by-day recital of the succession
of events, the suspension of the meetings of the National

‘ To Madison, June i8, 1789. Memorial Edition, VH, 386.

232

THOMAS JEFFERSON

Assembly, the serment of Jeu de Paume on the twentieth, the
seance royale of June 23 and the refusal of the tiers eiat to
deliberate separately.

Jefferson could not help admiring the tenacity of the
Assemblee Nationale, but at the same time estimated that they
were going too far and had formed projects that were decidedly
too ambitious. “Instead of being dismayed with what has
passed, they seem to rise in their demands, and some of them to
consider the erasing of every vestige of a difference of order
as indispensable to the establishment and preservation of a
good constitution. I apprehend there is more courage than
calculation in this project.” ^

A letter of Lafayette to Jefferson dated Versailles, July 4,
contains an interesting postscriptum ; “Will you send me the
bill of Rights with your notes.” A subsequent letter is even
more pressing ; “To-morrow I propose my bill of rights about
the middle of the sitting; be pleased to consider it again
and make your observations.” As Lafayette introduced his
“Declaration Europ6enne des droits de I’homme et du citoyen”
on July II, 1789, the latter may be dated July 10. I had the
good fortune to find in the Jefferson papers not one text but
two of the Declaration.

One of the versions probably antedated by several months
the meeting of the National Assembly. Jefferson had it in his
hands as early as the beginning of 1789 and he even sent a copy
of it to Madison on January 12.^ The second text, far more
important, was annotated by Jefferson in pencil. Although
the handwriting is faint, it is perfectly legible. The emen-
dations and corrections he suggested are quite characteristic,
and are studied more in detail in the text I have published
elsewhere.^

> To John Jay, June 24-25, 1789. Memorial Edition, VH, 305.

2 Ibid , Vn, 268.

2 “ Letters of Lafayette and Jefiteraon.” Paris, Baltimore, 1929.

THE FRENCH REVOLUTION

233

Some of the modihcations suggested by Jefferson do not
require any comment ; they are mere verbal changes such as
the substitution of “ tels sont ” for “ tels que.” But as Lafayette
had enumerated among the essential rights of man "le soin de
son honneur" and “la propriete’\ Jefferson put both terms in
brackets, thus indicating that they should be taken out. The
elimination of the first term is probably due to the fact that
Montesquieu had indicated that “Itonneur^’ is the main prin-
ciple on which rests monarchical government and is easily under-
standable. The elimination of the “droit de proprieie ” can
only be explained if we refer to the theory of rights already
discussed and by which was established a distinction between
the natural rights and the civil rights. Lafayette accepted the
first correction but not the second; he was too much under
the influence of his physiocratic colleagues even to understand
the legalistic and historical point of view of his American friend.
The project he submitted to the Assembly, as well as the three
“Declarations des droits de Thomme”, consequently followed
on this point the Virginia Bill of Rights rather than the Declara-
tion of Independence.

In a similar way, Lafayette had listed the powers constituting
the government in the following order: “exeaitif, UgislatiJ
et jiidiciaire", and refused to follow the order suggested by
Jefferson’s “ UgislatiJ, exUutiJ, jiidiciaire.” This was more than
a mere question of arrangement; there was evidently in the
minds of both Jefierson and his French friend a question of
hierarchy and almost subordination; if it is a mere nuance,
the nuance was very significant. The last paragraph deserves
even more careful consideration. In the January version it
read: “Et comme le pr ogres des Itmib'es, et V introduction des
abus necessitent de temps en temps une revision de la constitution
. . . The second edition annotated by Jefferson expressed
the same idea in much more definite terms; “Et comme le
progrbs des lumi'eres, Vintroduction des abus et le droit des gdne~

234

THOMAS JEFFERSON

rations qtd se succedent necessiient la revision de tout etahlissement
hurnain, il doit tire indique des moyens constiiuHonnels qui as-
surent dans certain cas une convocation extraordinaire de repre-
sentants dont le seul objet soil d’ examiner et modifier, s’il le faut,
la forme du Gomernement." This mention of the “droit des
ginerations qui se succhdent" seems a typically Jeffersonian idea,
The same theory will be found fully developed in a letter to
Samuel Kercheval written in i8i6 and dealing with the revision
of tile Constitution of Virginia. It was expressed originally in
a letter to James Madison, written from Paris on September 9,
1789. Curiously enough, Jefferson declared then that this
theory had never been proposed before : “ The question whether
one generation of men has a right to bind another, seems never
to have been started on this or on our side of the water. Yet
it is a question of such consequence as not only to merit
decision, but places also the fundamental principles of every
government.” ^ It is true that this special point was not
retained in the “Declaration des droits de rhomine” as finally
adopted by the Assemble Nationale in its sessions of August,
17S9, although it was proposed by Montmorency and reap-
peared as the last article of the “Declaration” of the Conven-
tion Nationale of May 29, 1793. But one may wonder how
Jefierson could overlook the fact that the same principle was
embodied in Lafayette’s “Declaration.” It is very unlikely
that he would have claimed credit for the idea if it had been
originated by his friend. A more acceptable explanation would
be to admit that having suggested to Lafayette a theory which
was not retained by the committee, he felt perfectly free to state
that “ the question had never been started.”

The American plenipotentiary was not an eye-witness of the
famous scenes of the fourteenth of July, or as he calls it “the
tumult of Paris”, but he learned about it fully from M. de
Corny, and wrote to Jay a long and interesting account (July 1 9)
* Memorial Edirion, VIII, 434,

THE FRENCH REVOLUTION 235

of the capture of La Bastille, the return of the king to Paris
and the presentation of the national cockaded

In the meantime he was placed in a very embarrassing situ-
ation by his French admirers. The prestige of the author of
the Declaration of Independence was such that the committee
in charge of a plan of constitution thought they could do no
better than to call into consultation the Minister of the United
States. Champion de Cic6, Archbishop of Bordeaux and chair-
man of the committee, sent him an urgent appeal to attend one
of the first meetings, so that they might profit by the light of
his reason and experience.^ Jefferson, after mentioning the
invitation, relates the incident in his “Autobiography” as fol-
lows: “I excused myself on the obvious considerations that
my mission was to the King, as chief magistrate of the nation,
that my duties were limited to the concerns of my own country,
and forbade me to intermeddle with the internal transactions of
that, in which I had been received under a specific charter.”
This may be the sense he wished to convey to Champion de
Cice but the actual letter is far less categorical. Contrary to
his custom he wrote it himself, although it is in French, alleging
that the dispatches for America took aU his time and adding
that the committee would lay themselves open to criticism if
they invited to their deliberations a foreigner accredited to the
head of the nation, when the very question under discussion
was a modification and abridgement of his powers. But he
assured the archbishop of his most sincere and most passionate
wishes for the complete success of the undertaking, which was
certainly stretching diplomatic proprieties to the limit.

The deliberations of the committee went on without Jeffer-
son’s official assistance; but shortly after the project of the
constitution was presented, the deputies came to a deadlock

iTo J. Jay, July ig, 1789. Memorial Edition, VII, 409 and to James Madison
July 22. Ibid., VII, 424.

^ Manuscript. Library of Congress, July 20, 1789.

336 THOMAS JEFFERSON

on the veto power to be given to the king. After some stormy
meetings, Lafayette conceived the idea that the house of the
Minister of the United States was the only place near Versailles
where some tranquillity could be obtained. He consequently
invited eight of his friends to take dinner at the house of Jeffer-
son, and having no time to consult him on the matter, scribbled
a note in great hurry to ask Jefferson to make the necessary
preparations for the unexpected guests : “Those gentlemen wish
to consult with you and me ; they will dine to-morrow at your
house, as mine is always full.” ^

Jefferson has given a somewhat embellished account of the
memorable dinner in his “Autobiography.” The mention of it
in a letter to John Jay a few weeks later is less florid and prob-
ably more accurate.^ The members of the committee dis-
cussed together their points of difference for six hours, and in
the course of the discussion agreed on mutual sacrifices. Writ-
ing from memory, at the age of seventy-seven, Jefferson added :
“I was a silent witness to a coolness and candor of argument,
unusual in the conflicts of political opinion ; to a logical reason-
ing, and chaste eloquence, disfigured by no gaudy tinsel of
rhetoric or declamation, and truly worthy of being placed in
parallel with the finest dialogues of antiquity, as handed to us
by Xenophon, by Plato and Cicero.” ^

Whether Jefferson remained a silent witness during these
six hours is not so improbable as it would seem. It may well
be doubted whether his knowledge of French was sufficient
to enable him to participate in an animated discussion with
eight Frenchmen. Under the circumstances silence was as
much a necessity as a virtue. But when the American minis-
ter woke up the next morning he realized that it was impossible
to keep the thing secret and that the French Government had

* Jefferson Papers. Library of Congress, probably August, 1789.
® September 20, 1789. Memorial Edition, VII, 474.

® “iVutobiograpliy”, 1, 156

THE FRENCH REVOLUTION

237

every right to blame him for lending his house for a discussion
of French internal politics. Unpleasant as it was, the only
thing to do was to make a clean breast of it. He went at once
to Montmorin to tell him “ with truth and candor how it hap-
pened that my house had been made the scene of conferences
of such a character.” — “He told me,” Jefferson continued,
“that he already knew everything which had passed,” which
is the stock answer of the professional diplomat, whether he
wishes to appear well-informed or wants to draw some further
information from his interlocutor. Jefferson opened his heart,
and if Montmorin did not know everything before giving audi-
ence to the American minister, there was little he did not know
after hearing his account of the dinner.

With this curious incident, Jefferson ends his account of the
French Revolution. During the year, he had complained on
several occasions that his French friends seemed unable to
realize the importance of insisting on trial by jury in criminal
cases. He finally persuaded one of the “abb^s” to study the
question thoroughly and on that occasion indicated exactly
how he stood in matters of government. All told, his views
had not changed much, and at that time he would not have
accepted without reservations and qualifications the famous
principle of “government by the people.” There was still in
his mind, if not in all his formulas, a tacit admission that aU the
people could not unreservedly participate m ail branches of
government. Nothing could be clearer than the distinctions
he established and nothing could be less demagogical.

“We think, in America, that it is necessary to introduce the
people into every department of government, as far as they are
capable of exercising it ; and that this is the only way to insure
a long-continued and honest administration of its power.”
Then he preceded to define, point by point, the extent to Which
the people could safely be allowed to participate in the execu-
tive, legislative, and judiciary branches of the government.

238 THOMAS JEFFERSON

1. They are not qualified to exercise themselves the executive
department, but they are qualified to name the person who shall
exercise it. With us, therefore, they choose this officer every four
years. 2. They are not qualified to legislate. With us therefore,
they only choose the legislators. 3. They are not qualified io judge
questions of law, but they are very capable of judging questions of
fact. In the form of juries, therefore, they determine all matters
of fact, leaving to the permanent judges to decide the law resulting
from those facts.^

Thus spoke the champion of democracy at the beginning of
the French Revolution, after spending five years in Paris and
supposedly permeating his mind with the wild theories of the
French philosophers. And what he said of the people on this
occasion did not apply to the French people alone, for he made
it clear that it was the political theory applied “in America.”
It was essentially the theory of government by experts which
he already had in mind when he proposed the reorganization
of the College of William and Mary. In 1778, as well as in
1789, Jefferson did not hesitate to proclaim that if the source
of all power was in the people, the people could not exercise
their power in all circumstances, that they had to delegate their
authority to men really qualified, retaining only the right to
select them. This may not be the common acceptation of the
term “Jeffersonian democracy”, but I have a strong suspicion
that on the whole Jefferson never changed much in this re-
spect. He certainly never stood for mob rule, nor for direct
government by the masses, and he knew too much about the
delicate and complicated wheels of government to believe that
the running of such a tremendous machine could be intrusted
to untrained hands.

As for the French, he trusted them even less, and never be-
lieved, as long as he remained in France, that they were pre-
pared for self-government. He refused to consider that a real

*To M. I’AbM Amoud, Paris, July 19, 1789. Memorial Edition, VII, 422,

TPIE FRENCH REVOLUTION

239

revolution had started before his eyes or was even in sight.
“Upon the whole, “ he wrote to Madison shortly before his de-
parture from Paris, “I do not see yet probable that any actual
commotion will take place ; and if it does take place, I have
strong conhdence that the patriotic party will hold together,
and their party in the nation be what I have ascribed it.” Up
to the last moment he held the belief that the king, “the sub-
stantial people of the whole country, the army, and the influ-
ential part of the clergy, formed a firm phalanx which must
prevail.” ^ The analysis of the situation sent to Jay just as he
was about to leave Paris does not indicate even the possibility
of establishing a republic, since the only parties he distinguished
were :

... the aristocrats, comprehending the higher members of the
clergy, military, nobility, and the parliaments of the whole kingdom ;
the moderate royalists who wish for a constitution nearly similar to
that of England ; the republicans who are willing to let their first
magistracy be hereditary, but to make it very subordinate to
the legislature, and to have that legislature consist of a single
chamber.2

Jefferson was not the man to indulge in effusions even when
he was deeply moved and throughout his mission in France
he deliberately refrained from any expression of personal feel-
ings. But the love and friendship of the French for the United
States was so general and so genuine, it formed such a contrast
with the cold and tenacious enmity of Great Britain, that the
American minister was won and conquered by it and had to
come to the conclusion that “nothing should be spared to at-
tach this country to us. It is the only one on which we can
rely for support, under every event. Its inhabitants love us
more, I think, than they do any other nation on earth. This
is very much the efiect of the good dispositions with which the

* To Madison, August 28, 1789. Memorial Edition, VH, 448,

® To John Jay, September 19, 1789. Ibid., VII, 467.

240

THOMAS JEFFERSON

French officers returned.” ^ Everybody is familiar with the
closing lines of Jefferson’s account of his mission to France :
“ So, ask the traveller inhabitant of any nation, in what coun-
try would you rather live ? — Certainly, in my own, where are
all my friends, my relations, and the earliest and sweetest
affections and recollections of my life. Which would be your
second choice? France.”

These lines were written at the twilight of his life, when his
memory took him back to the wonderful days he had lived in
Paris, while the old regime was shedding the last rays of its
evanescent glory. Less known, but far more revealing of his
true feelings at the time, is a passage in one of Iris letters to
James Madison. It is one of the very few times, and as a
matter of fact, the first time when he declared that the nations
of the world had to abandon their old code of selfislmess and
that a new principle of international life had to be recognized.
For there is only one standard of morality, one code of con-
duct between nations as between individuals.

It is impossible — he wrote — to desire better dispositions
towards us than prevail in this Assembly. Our proceedings have
been viewed as a model for them on every occasion ; and though
in the heat of debate, men are generally disposed to contradict every
authority urged by their opponents, ours has been treated like that
of the Bible, open to explanation, but not to question. I am sorry
that in the moment of such a disposition, anything should come from
us to check it. The placing them on a mere footing with the English,
will have this effect. When of two nations, the one has engaged her-
self in a ruinous war for us, has spent her blood and money to save
us, has opened her bosom to us in peace, and received us almost on
the footing of her own citizens, while the other has moved heaven,
earth, and hell to exterminate us in war, has insulted us in all her
councils in peace, shut her doors to us in every part where her inter-
ests would admit it, libelled us in foreign nations, endeavoured to
poison them against the reception of our most precious commodities ;

To James Madison, Januajy 30, 1^87. Memorial Edition, VI, 70.

THE FRENCH REVOLUTION

241

to place these two nations on a footing, is to give a great deal more
to one than to the other, if the maxim be true, that to make unequal
quantities equal, you must add more to one than the other. To
say, in excuse, that gratitude is never to enter into the motives of
national conduct, is to revive a principle which has been buried
for centuries with its kindred principles of the lawfulness of assas-
sination, poison, perjury, etc. All of these were legitimate prin-
ciples in the dark ages which intervened between ancient and
modern civilization, but exploded and held in just horror in the
eighteenth century, I know but one code of morality for men,
whether acting singly or collectively. . . . Let us hope that our
government will take some other occasions to show, that they
proscribe no virtue from the canons of their conduct with other
nations.^

* To James Madison, August 28, 1789. Memorial Edition, Vn, 448.

BOOK FOUR

Monocrats and Republicans

CHAPTER I

THE QUARREL WITH HAMILTON

For more than two years Jefferson had repeatedly expressed
the wish to be allowed to return to his native country, at least
for a short visit. When he finally received official notifica-
tion that his request had been granted, he departed from Paris
rather abruptly and even without taking leave of his best
friends. “Adieus are painful,” he wrote to Madame de Corny,
“therefore I left Paris without bidding one to you.” ^ This is
a naive and quite significant confession of the difficulty he
experienced in maintaining his puritanical restraint and im-
passibility at that time. He went with his two daughters from
Le Havre to Cowes, and waited there tiU October 14 for fav-
orable winds. After a rapid crossing on the Montgomery they
sighted the “Capes” on November 13, and barely escaped
being shipwrecked in the bay. Although damaged by fire
and stripped of part of her rigging, the ship was able to reach
Norfolk, and Jefferson promptly set out for Richmond and
Monticello, stopping however on the way at Eppington with
the Eppes. It was there that he received two letters from
President Washington, one dated October 13, the other No-
vember 30, asking him to accept the post of Secretary of State
in the newly formed cabinet. The President’s letters were
most flattering and indicated that he had been “ determined, as
well by motives of private regard, as a conviction of public
propriety ” to nominate him for the office.

Jefferson at first experienced the natural repugnance of a
man who had put his heart into an important undertaking and

‘ “Trois amities tranfaises de Jefferson”, p. i88.

246 THOMAS JEFFERSON

was asked suddenly to abandon it. He was better acquainted
with the situation in Paris tlian any man he could think of : it
had taken him several years of constant work and patient efforts
to bring the French officials over to his views. His best friends
were in the new government and would help him to obtain
for the United States better commercial terms and a more
satisfactory debt settlement. Let us add that for a philosophi-
cal observer France offered the most fascinating spectacle,
and Jefferson did not feel that life in New York could bring
him the same social and intellectual pleasures as Paris. Quite
significantly he wrote to Washington : “as far as my fears, my
hopes, or my inclination enter into this question, I confess that
they would not lead me to prefer a change.” On the other
hand, he did not make a categorical refusal, in case he should
be “drafted”, and the President formally nominated him.

Nothing else was done in the matter until Madison visited
him at MonticeUo and acquainted him vith the situation.
But even Madison could not win his consent,^ and the Presi-
dent had to assure Jefferson that the duties of his office would
probably not be quite so complicated and hard to execute
as he might have been led at the first moment to imagine.*
It was not a command, but while the President left him
free to decide he expressed a strong hope and wish that
Jefferson would accept. So, on February 14 he sent his letter
of acceptance.

In the meantime he had married Martha to Thomas Mann
Randolph, Junior, “a yoimg gentleman of genius, science, and
honorable mind”, who afterwards filled “a dignified station in
the General Government, and the most dignified in his own
State.” ® Although Jefferson had wished for such a marriage,
he had left Martha free to make her own choice, as he explained
in a letter to Madame de Corny: “Tho’ his talents, disposi-

* Madison to Washington. January 4, 1790.

‘Washington to Jefferson. January 21. “‘Autobiography”, p. 161.

THE QUARREL WITH HAMILTON 247

tion, connections, fortune, were such as would have made him
my first choice, yet according to the usage of my country, I
scrupulously suppressed my wishes, that my daughter might
indulge in her own sentiments freely.” ^ The marriage took
place on April 2, 1790, and on the next day Jefferson set out for
New York to take his place in the Cabinet. He reached Phila-
delphia on the twelfth. There he stopped to pay his respects
to the man “he has succeeded but not replaced”, old Doctor
Franklin then on the sick bed from which he never arose. “ My
recent return from a country in which he had left so many
friends, and the perilous convulsions to which they had been
exposed, revived ah his anxieties to know what part they had
taken, what had been their course, and what their fate. He
went over all in succession with a rapidity and animation
almost too much for his strength.” It was on this occasion that
Franklin put in his hands a paper containing an account of his
negotiations with Lord Howe to prevent a war between the
colonies and their mother country, papers which, unfortu-
nately, Jefferson entrusted later to William Temple Frank-
lin, who “ delayed the publication for more than twenty
years.” ^ Jefferson arrived in New York on the twenty-
first, took his lodgings at the City Tavern, and finally rented
a smaU house in Maiden Lane.

Congress was in session and business had accumulated on
the desk of the new secretary : he plunged at once into work.
All his colleagues had already taken charge of their respective
departments : Colonel Alexander Hamilton was in charge of
the Treasury, General Henry Knox of the War Department,
Edmund Randolph, Attorney-general. Those were the only
departments thus far created and among them the four secre-
taries divided all the different attributions of tlie executive
power. With them he was to sit in Cabinet meetings pre-

1 "Trois amities franfaises de Jefferson”, p. igs. February 28, 1790-

* “ Autobiography.” Memoriai Edition, 1 , 103.

248 THOMAS JEFFERSON

sided over by Washington until his retirement from office, in
December, 1793.

The distinction usually established between domestic and
foreign politics is obviously an arbitrary one and does not
correspond to reality. This was particularly true of an age
when the attributes of the Secretary of State were far less
specialized than in our day. Even if he had been inclined to
neglect the questions of internal administration — to give him-
self entirely to foreign affairs — Jefferson would have been con-
stantly reminded of the existence of many other problems of
equal importance to the future of the nation by his colleagues
and the President himself. In addition, it was Washington's
ordinary practice not only to discuss all important measures
in a Cabinet council, but often to request each member of his
official family to give his opinion in writing on these questions.
Such documents as have been preserved constitute a most
precious source of information for the history of the period ;
they are usefully supplemented by the notes that Jefferson
took at the time and transcribed “twenty five years or more”
afterwards for the use of posterity. The three volumes ‘ ‘ bound
in marbled paper” in which Jefferson copied these notes, taken
on loose scraps of paper, are the famous “Anas” which he col-
lected to justify himself against the accusations that biog-
raphers of Washington — such as Marshall — had already
launched against him. Although there is no reason to beHeve
that Jefferson deliberately altered the old records, it is certain
that they were edited, that many scraps of papers were dis-
carded, although not destroyed, and that a “critical” edition
of the “Anas” would not be without interest. They are pre-
ceded by an introduction in which, more than twenty-five
years later, Jefferson gave an estimate of his former opponents,
Hamilton and John Adams. This final judgment can in no
way be used in discussing events that took place between 1790
and 1793, and it contains no indication worth retaining about

THE QUARREL WITH HAMILTON 249

Jefferson’s attitude at that time towards his colleagues and
the Vice President. The man who wrote this introduction in
February, 1818, was really another Jefferson. He may tell
us that he arrived in the midst of a bitter contest, “But a
stranger to the ground, a stranger to the actors on it, so long
absent as to have lost all familiarity with the subject, and as
yet unaware of its object, I took no concern in it.” ^ It must
be admitted at the outset that such is not the impression one
can gather from the correspondence.

That the financial structure of the Continental Congress had
collapsed and that immediate remedies were necessary Jeffer-
son knew as well and probably better than any other member
of the Cabinet. He had not the expert knowledge of Hamil-
ton, but more than once he had had to deal with financial ques-
tions, and when in Paris had displayed considerable skill in
dealing with the members of the Committee of Commerce.
He had prepared schedules for the payment of the French and
Dutch loans and discussed finances with Dutch bankers in
Amsterdam. Furthermore, his governorship of Virginia dur-
ing the war had acquainted him with the question of State
debts. If he could be tricked and made to hold the candle,
as he said, there was no man who could resist the superior
genius and Machiavellisra of the arch financier of the United
States. As a matter of fact, if he was hoodwinked, he
was not at the beginning, at least, a blind or an unwilling
victim.

Following the financial reorganization defined by the Con-
stitution and the appointment of a Secretary of the Treasury,
according to the Act of 1789, Hamilton prepared for the period
under consideration four documents : Report on Public Credit,
January 9, 1790; Report on a National Bank, December 5,
1790 ; Report on the Establishment of a Mint, May i, 1791 ;
Report on Manufactures, December 5, 1791.

‘Memorial Edition, I, 274.

250 THOMASJEFFERSON

The first subject for consideration was the national debt,
The foreign debt was unquestionably a matter of national
honor and had to be paid in full, according to the terms of con-
tract : with the arrears of interest it amounted to $11,710,000,
The domestic debt was estimated at $27,383,000 for the prin-
cipal, $13,030,000 for accrued interest and $2,000,000 for un-
liquidated debt. After some opposition it was finally decided
that holders of certificates would receive their face value with
interest. But there remained the question of States debts
which was hopelessly confused and destined to lead to a bitter
controversy. The reorganization plan proposed that repay-
ment could be made in a more orderly way through some sort
of a central organization rather than through the States, and
outlined the famous “Assumption” by which the Federal
Government would “assume”, with a discount to be deter-
mined, the debts incurred by the several States during the course
of the war. It naturally meant that additional revenue had to
be raised by Federal measures and consequently distributed
between all the States, whose debts varied in nature and amount
from State to State, some of which having already proceeded
to a semi-reorganization, while others, having not suffered
from the war, were financially in good condition. The opposi-
tion came naturally from the Southern States, whose popula-
tion was smaller in comparison with the Northern States.

The opponents of the measure objected very strenuously
at first, arguing that it would give an unfair advantage to
those that had contracted debts too freely during the war, and
would penalize those who had already set their financial house
in order ; and also that it would be a usurpation of powers not
conferred by the Constitution to the Federal Government.

First defeated in Congress, the “Assumption” was finally
adopted under circumstances now to be related. Jefferson’s
unofficial representative in Congress, Madison, had already
strenuously opposed the measure proposed by the Secretary of

THE QUARREL WITH HAMILTON 251

the Treasury. When Jefferson arrived in New York to take
possession of his office, the battle had been going on for some
time, and four days later he wrote to T. M. Randolph that
“Congress is principally occupied with the treasury report.
The assumption of the State debts has been voted affirmatively
in the first instance, but it is not certain that it will hold its
ground through all the changes of the hill when it shall
be brought in.” ^ There is little doubt that Madison had
already acquainted him with his views of the situation, but it
is also probable that Jefferson paid small heed to them for the
time being. He suffered for several weeks from severe head-
aches, he had to write many letters of farewell to his French
friends, and the accmnulation of reports and papers he found
on his desk required all his attention.

In June, however, he expressed to George Mason his doubts
that the “Assumption” would be finally adopted. But, far
from siding with the out-and-out opponents of the measure, he
thought it would be wiser to compromise, so he added, “my
duties preventing me from mingling in these questions, I do
not pretend to be very competent to their decision. In gen-
eral, I think it necessary to give as well as take in a govern-
ment like ours.” ^

As a matter of fact, it was already patent that an almost
irreconcilable difference of opinion on the matter existed be-
tween Hamilton and the Virginians, and, a week later, Jefferson
himself invited the Secretary of the Treasury to take dinner at
his house with a few friends in order to hold an informal con-
ference; for he thought it impossible that “reasonable men,
consulting together coolly, could fail, by some mutual sacrifices
of opinion to form a compromise which was to save the Union.”
Jefferson has related ^'he scene in the “Anas”, biit a somewhat
different account is given in his letter to James Monroe, written

’■ Maich 28, 1790. Memorial Edition, VUI, 9.

^ June 13, 1790. Ibid , VIII, 36.

252 THOMAS JEFFERSON

June 20, 1790, from New York, in which he outlined the com-
promise. He mentioned that two considerations had im-
pelled him to discuss it; first the fact that if some funding
bill were not agreed to, the credit of the United States at Am-
sterdam would collapse and vanish and each State be left alone
to take care of itself. Although he was not enthusiastic about
the means to be employed and foresaw that the United States
would have difficulties in raising the necessary money by Fed-
eral taxation instead of letting the States raise it themselves,
he accepted the solution with open eyes ; “In the present in-
stance, I see the necessity of yielding to cries of the creditors
in certain parts of the Union ; for the sake of the Union, and to
save us from the greatest of all calamities, the total extinction
of our credit in Europe.” More than any member of the Cabi-
net he was aware of the imminence of this danger. On the
other hand, and in order to give some satisfaction to the South-
ern States, it would be agreed that Congress would be trans-
ferred to Philadelphia for a period of twelve to fifteen years,
and thereafter, without further declaration, to Georgetown.
This was clearly a “deal”, and Jefferson knew it so well that
he denied that it was one, “The Pennsylvania and Virginia
delegates have conducted themselves honorably, on the ques-
tion of residence. Without descending to talk about bargains,
they have seen that their true interests lay in not listening to
the insidious propositions made, to divide and defect them, and
we have seen them at times voting against their respective
wishes rather than separate.” Whether the word bargain
had been used or not is immaterial. Gentlemen sitting around
a table after the cloth has been removed and the punch bowl
brought in can come to an understanding “ d, demi mot.'” ^ Noth-
ing official had been done yet, but writing to Dumas, the finan-
cial agent at Amsterdam, Jefierson, in order to maintain the
credit of the country, put his best foot forward and solemnly

1 June 20, 1790. Memorial Edition, VTH, 43.

THE QUARREL WITH HAMILTON 253

declared “that there is not one single individual in the United
States, whether in or out of office, who supposes they can ever
do anything which might impair their foreign contracts.”
With respect to domestic paper, Dumas could rest assured that
“justice would be done ” and, although the question was terribly
complicated, it was “possible that modifications may be pro-
posed which may bring the measure, yet into an acceptable
form.” 1

With Gilmer, he was more frank and indicated clearly that
among the possible ways in which the conflict in Congress
might yet terminate, the best probably would be “a bargain
between the eastern members who have it so much at heart,
and the Middle members who are indifferent about it, to adopt
these debts without modification, on condition of removing the
seat of government to Philadelphia or Baltimore.” The third
solution, which Jefferson preferred, would have proposed to
divide the total sum between all the States in proportion to
their census, and to establish the national capital first and
temporarily at Philadelphia, then, and permanently at George-
town.^ This was not an ideal solution ; it was a compromise
which would at least present the advantage of givmg new life to
the agriculture and commerce of the South. The main objec-
tion, however, still remained, for the Federal Government
would have to raise the imposts and overburden that source of
revenue, but it seemed that “some sacrifice was necessary for
the sake of peace.” ® Once again^ but not for the last time,
Jefferson saw himself in a dilemma. He was too far-sighted
not to understand that the individual States would have to
abandon some of their rights and a portion of their sovereignty
in order to acquire more financial stability, and that more
power would be concentrated in the hands of the Federal Gov-
ernment. On the other hand, he was no less firmly convinced

' June 23, 1790. Memorial Edition, VIII, 47.

2 To Gilmer, June 27, 1790. Ibid , VIII, S3- ’ Ibid., VIH, 63.

254

THOMAS JEFFERSON

that a secession would unavoidably result from a rejection of
the “Assumption”, and he was ready to sacrihce his most
cherished preferences on the altar of the Union.

On August 14, Jefferson could announce to Randolph that
Congress had separated

the day before yesterday, having reacquired the harmony which
always distinguished their proceedings before the two disagreeable
questions of assumption and residence were introduced. ... It is
not foreseen that anything so generative of dissention can arise
again, and therefore the friends of the government hope that this
difi&culty once surmounted in the States, everything will work well.
I am principally afraid that commerce will be over loaded by the
assumption, believing that it would be better that property should
be duly taxed.

He discussed for the first time the exact ways and means in
a letter to Gouvernetir Morris on November 26, 1790, and indi-
cated that additional funds would be provided by a tax on
spirituous liquors, foreign and homemade, that the whole in-
terest would be raised by taxes on consumption. , . . “Add
to this what may be done by throwing in the aid of western
lands and other articles as a sinking fund, and our prospect is
really a bright one.” ^

It is perfectly true that the letter to Morris was to a great
extent for publicity purposes, yet we do not find in it the slightest
mark of disapproval of the tax itself, nor do we find it in a letter
written to De Moustier in which, on the contrary, Jefferson
mentioned the advantages of duties on consumption, which fall
principally on the rich; for it is “a general desire to make
them contribute the whole money we want, if possible.”
It was not until February that doubts began to percolate
into his mind, and he inquired from Colonel Mason “what
was said in our country (Virginia), of the fiscal arrangements

' November 26, 1790, Memorial Edition, VIII, 107,

* Pecember 3, 1790. Ibid., VIII, log.

THE QUARREL WITH HAMILTON 255

now going on.” But he did not yet take the question really
to heart :

Whether these measures be right or wrong abstractedly, more
attention should be paid to the general opinion. However, all
will pass, — the excise will pass — the bank will pass. The only
corrective of what is corrupt in our present form of government will
be the augmentation of the numbers in the lower House, so as to get
more agricultural representation, which may put that interest above
that of the stock-jobbers.^

This is the first indication of a rift between Jefferson and
Hamilton.

Yet Jefferson was willing to yield more ground in order to
avoid an open break. The Bank Bill of Hamilton had passed
the Senate without difficulty ; in the House it had been opposed
on constitutional grounds by Madison but had finally obtained
a majority. When the bill was sent to the President, Wash-
ington, unwilling to do anything unconstitutional, asked both
the Attorney-general Randolph and Jefferson to give their
opinion on the matter in writing. The report written on this
occasion by the Secretary of State is a psychological document
both interesting and revealing.

Jefferson started out by enumerating the different meas-
ures included in the Bank BiQ, pointing out en passant that
they were intended to break down the most ancient and fimda-
mental laws of several States, such as those against mortmain,
the laws of alienage, the rules of descent, the acts of distribu-
tion, the laws of escheat and forfeiture, the laws of monopoly.
He then demonstrated to his own satisfaction that power to
establish such an institution was neither specifically declared
nor implied in any article of the Constitution. The only gen-
eral statement that could be construed as authorizing it was a
mention “to make aU laws necessary and proper for carrying
into execution the enmnerated powers.” Finally he under-

' February 4, 1791. Memorial Fdition, VIII, 113 .

256 THOMASJEFFERSON

took to prove that the bank might be convenient but was in
nowise necessary. The conclusion was obvious after these
very closely knitted pieces of legal reasoning : “Nothing but a
necessity inevitable by any other means can justify such a
prostitution of laws, which constitute the pillars of our whole
system of jurisprudence.” The President’s veto could clearly
be used in that case, since that was the buckler provided
by the Constitution to protect it against the invasions of the
legislature.

Jefferson could and perhaps should have stopped there.
But he was far from certain that HamilLon’s views would not
prevail, and in that case he would have committed himself
irrevocably. This he did not wish to do. He consequently
provided at the end a way of escape for himself as well as for
the President ;

It must be added, however, that unless the President’s mind
on a view of everything which is urged for and against this bill, is
tolerably clear that it is unauthorized by the Constitution ; if the
pro and the con hang so even as to balance his judgment, a just
respect for the wisdom of the legislature would naturally decide the
balance in favor of their opinion. It is chiefly for cases where they
are clearly misled by error, ambition, or interest, that the Constitu-
tion has placed a check in the negative of the President.

This was very adroit, almost too adroit. It was the answer
of a master politician. Whether it was absolutely straight-
forward is a very different question. Jefferson, who so often
accused others of being “trimmers”, was undoubtedly open
to such an accusation himself.

With the opinion of Randolph and Jefferson before him, the
President asked Hamilton, as sponsor of the biH, to present his
rejoinder in writing. On the twenty-third he submitted his
famous “ Opinion as to the Constitutionality of the Bank of the
United States” in which he developed the doctrine of “implied
powers.”

ALEXANDER HAMILTON

From the painting by John Tfumhtill in the possession of the
Essex Institute, Salem, Mass.

THE QUARREL WITH HAMILTON 257

Now it appears — said Hamilton — to the Secretary of the
Treasury that this general principle is inherent in the very definition
of government and essential to every step of the progress to be made
by that of the United States, namely . That every power vested in
a government is in its nature sovereign, and includes, by force of the
term, a right to employ all the means reqirisite and fairly applicable
to the attainment of the ends of such power, and which are not
precluded by restrictions and exceptions specified in the Constitu-
tions, or not immoral, or not contrary to the essential ends of politi-
cal society.

As a matter of fact, the question at the bottom of the con-
troversy was the question of State rights; but, curiously
enough, it is indicated only incidentally in Jefferson’s opinion.
He was not ready to join issues on that question, much more
clearly brought forward by Madison m his speeches before the
House, when he said ;

I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this
ground : That all powers not delegated to the United States, by
the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the United States, are
reserved to the States or to the people (Xllth amendment). To
take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specifically drawn
around the power of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless
fi.eld of power, no longer susceptible of definition.^

This was exactly the question, for to accept Hamilton’s
theory was to open the way to countless encroachments of the
Federal Government on State rights. Washington’s adminis-
tration had come to its most momentous decision for the future
of the government of the United States. This was really the
parting of the ways. Jefferson knew it and saw it; it was
obvious that, with a centralized, financial organization, a central
political organization would develop. All sorts of practical con-
siderations may be brought in and nice legal points drawn, but
the fact remains that when the representatives of the different

' '‘Writings”, VI, 19-43

2 s8 THOMAS JEFFERSON

States not only permitted but were eager to sec the Federal
Government assume the responsibility of State debts, they sold
their birthright for the not imconsiderable sum of $21,500,000.
Perhaps it was the only possible solution at the time. Per-
haps Jefferson showed wisdom and political sense in not getting
up and fighting to the last ditch. He registered as strong a
protest as he could without burning his bridges. He knew from
the temper of the Flouse that there was no hope of making
them accept any other solution. He knew that against the
strongly organized Federalists he could not muster any well-
disciplined troops. He feared the immediate dissolution of the
Union and temporized ; but all the rest of his life was to be
spent in trying to recover the grotmd lost on that day.

Jefferson was soon to realize how poorly equipped and sec-
onded he was when he had to take up the battle practically
single-handed.

In the spring of 1791 Madison had loaned him a copy of
Thomas Pahie’s pamphlet, “The Rights of Man”, written in
answer to Burke’s denmiciation of the French Revolution.
When the owner of the pamphlet requested that it be returned,
for it was the only copy at his disposal and he intended to have
it reprinted in Philadelphia, Jefferson courteously returned it,
and added a short note in which he expressed his satisfaction
that such a valuable work would appear in America; “I am
extremely pleased to find it will be reprinted here, and that
something is at length to be publicly said against the political
heresies which have sprung up among us. I have no doubt our
citizens will rally a second time round the standard of ‘ Com-
mon Sense.’ ” There is no indication whatever that Jefferson
intended the note for publication, but the printer thought it
would help the success of the pamphlet if Jefferson’s letter were
printed as a preface. All the peaceful intentions of the Secre-
tary of State had come to naught. The word heresies could
apply only to the Federalists, and among the Federalists to

THE QUARREL WITH HAMILTON 259

Jolin Adams, whose “Discourse on Davila” had been appear-
ing in Fenno’s paper. Jefferson could declare that nothing
was further from his intentions than to appear as a contra-
dictor of Mr. Adams in public; very few men would believe
it and Jefferson himself realized it so well that he wrote at once
to Washington to explain his position :

Mr. Adams will unquestionably take to himself the charge of
political heresy, as conscious of his own views of drawing the present
government to the form of the English constitution, and, I fear, will
consider me as meaning to injure him in the public eye. I learnt
that some Anglomen have, censured it in another point of view, as a
sanction of Paine’s principles tend to give offence to the British
government. Their real fear, however, is that this popular and
republican pamphlet, taking wonderfully, is likely at a single stroke,
to wipe out all the unconstitutional doctrines which their bell wether
Davila has been preaching for a twelvemonth. I certainly never
made a secret of my being anti-monarchical, and anti-aristocratical ;
but I am sincerely mortified to bo thus brought forward on the
public stage, where to remain, to advance or to retire, will be equally
against my love of silence and quiet and my abhorrence of dispute.'

His abhorrence of dispute was so real that, at this juncture,
he decided to leave Philadelphia for a trip north, staying two
days in New York, visiting the battlefield of Saratoga, Lake
George, Lake Champlain, and coming back through the Con-
necticut valley. Madison accompanied him on the trip, and
Mr. Bowers has advanced the hypothesis that it was during
the long conversations the two friends had during a whole month
alone together that the plans were formulated for establishing
a separate party to defend the republican ideals. This may
have been the result of the journey, but I doubt very much that
such was the purpose of Jefferson when he set out from Phila-
delphia. A more simple explanation is that, having written
his letter to Washington and made, as he thought, his position

^ To the President of the United States. Memorial Edition, VIII, 192. May8. i 79 ^‘

26 o thomasjefferson

clear, he hoped that the President would not fail to communi-
cate its contents to Adams if any unpleasant situation should
develop ; and he simply withdrew from the battlefield in order
not to enter into a public controversy. But he counted with-
out Adams’ temper. The Vice President considered Jeffer-
son’s short sentence as a challenge and proceeded promptly to
have it answered. A series of articles signed “ Publicola ” began
to appear in the Centinel, denouncing not only Paine, but Jeffer-
son hhnself. “Brutus” took up the cudgels in favor of Jeffer-
son and the newspaper battle was on. The public, always eager
to identify anonjunous writers, did not fail to attribute to Adams
the articles signed “Publicola”, while to Jefferson were attrib-
uted the answers written by Agricola, Brutus, and Philodemus.
When Jefferson came back from his trip the controversy was
raging, and soon he began to enjoy the conflict.

On July lo he sent to Colonel Monroe a bundle of papers
showing “what a dust Paine’s pamphlet has kicked up here”,
and he reiterated his approval of the book ;

A writer under the name of Publicola, in attacking Paine’s princi-
ples, is very desirous of involving me in the same censure with the
author. I certainly merit the same, for I profess the same princi-
ples ; but it is equally certain I never meant to have entered as a
volunteer into the cause. My occupations do not permit it. Some
persons here are insinuating that I am Brutus, that I am Agricola,
that I am Philodemus, etc., etc, I am none of them, being decided
not to write a word on the subject, unless any printed imputa-
tion should call for a printed disavowal, to which I should put
my name.

On the other hand he refused to take seriously the denial
that Adams “has no more concern in the publication of the
writings of Publicola, than the author of the 'Rights of Man’
himself,” But he saw with satisfaction that Hamilton had
taxed Adams with imprudence in stirring up the question and
agreed that “his business was done.” V^at was far more

THE QUARREL WITH HAMILTON 261

serious was the fury of gambling that had arisen at the open-
ing of the bank: “the land office, the federal town, certain
schemes of manufactures, are likely to be converted into ali-
ment for that rage.” ^

In a last effort to placate Adams, however, and chiefly in
order to avoid having his name dragged into a public contro-
versy, he wrote to the Vice President “from the conviction
that truth, between candid minds can never do harm.” He
assured him that he had not written “ a line for the newspapers.”
He declared “with truth in the presence of the Almighty that
nothing was further from his intention or his expectations than
to have either his own or Adams’ name brought before the
public on this occasion.” This was perfectly true, but at the
same time he was proposing to appoint Paine Postmaster, and
on July 29 he wrote to congratulate him, for, thanks to his little
book, the general opinion seemed to rally against a sect high
in name but small in number. “They are checked at least
by your pamphlet, and the people confirmed in their good old
faith.” ^ The fact that Adams accepted Jefferson’s explana-
tion more gracefully than was to be expected did not prevent
the fight from going on. It had already been taken out of the
hands of the leaders and the controversy was raging in the
papers. At this juncture Jefferson realized that the republi-
cans were very poorly armed in the capital and that they had
no paper in which their views could be expressed so as to coun-
teract the pernicious propaganda of Fenno’s paper. Thus
the result brought about was the foundation of the National
Gazette, Philip Freneau’s paper, in which Jefferson had a great
part. The story has never been told completely and deserves
more than passing attention, since Jefferson was soon to be
attacked by his enemies for the interest he took in the Gazette.
Several documents heretofore neglected allow us to reconstruct
exactly the part played by Jefferson in the undertaking, and
* Memorial Edition, VUI, 208. * Ibid., VIII, 223.

i 62 THOMAS JEFFERSON

particularly to settle a few questions of chronology which are
not without importance.

It does not appear that Jefferson had any ulterior motives
when, on February 28, 1791, he offered to Freneau, then living
miserably in New York, the clerkship for foreign languages in
the Department of State. “The salary indeed is very low,” he
wrote, “being but two hundred and fifty dollars a year; but
also it gives so little to do, as not to interfere with any other
calling the person may choose ... I was told a few days ago
that it might perhaps be convenient to you to accept it. If
so, it is at your seiwice.” Freneau answered promptly, on
March 5, that, having been for some time engaged in endeav-
ouring to establish a Weekly Gazette in Monmouth County
and having at present a prospect of succeeding in a tolerable
subscription, he found himself under the necessity of declin-
ing the acceptance of this “generous unsolicited proposal.”
On May 15, 1791, Jefferson, writing to T. M. Randolph, ex-
pressed his discontent at the attitude of the two leading papers
of Philadelphia and added :

We have been trying to get another weekly or half weekly paper
set up excluding advertisements so that it might go through the
States and furnish a right vehicle of intelligence. We hoped at one
time to have persuaded Freneau to set up here, but failed — in the
meantime Bache’s paper, the principles of which were always repub-
lican improve it’s matter.

Not until August 4 did Freneau write to Jefferson that, after
discussing the matter with Madison and Colonel Lee, he had
succeeded in making arrangements with a printer in Phila-
delphia and would submit proposals for the publication of a
newspaper. Freneau moved to Philadelphia, was appointed
clerk for foreign languages on August 16, and took oath of
office the next day. There is consequently no doubt that
Freneau was induced to leave New York by the double pros-

THE QUARREL WITH HAMILTON 263

pect of working in Jefferson’s ofiSce and at the same time
establishing a republican newspaper. On November 20, Jef-
ferson sent some sample copies to Randolph and wrote again
on January 22 to ask his son-in-law to find subscribers to the
Gazette. He sent to Freneau a list of subscribers from Char-
lottesville (March 23, 1792) and wrote to his friends that it was
the best paper ever published in America. On November 16,
1792, he announced to Randolph that Freneau’s paper was
getting into Massachusetts under the patronage of “Han-
cock, Sam. Adams, Mr. Ames, the colossus of the monocrats
and paper men will either be left out or hard run. The people
of that State are republican ; but hitherto they have heard
nothing but the hymns and lauds chaunted by Fenno.”

When Freneau was vehemently accused by Hamilton of
attacking members of the government while in the pay of the
government, Jefferson took up his defense and wrote to the
speaker of the House to point out that Freneau received
a nominal salary and had even “to pay himself special
translators for languages with which he was unacquainted.” ^
Finally, on October ii, Freneau sent in his resignation to
date from October i, 1793. Such are the bare facts and as
Freneau’s paper was to play an important part in the quarrel
with Hamilton, it is important to state them exactly.

The battle did not begin m earnest until the first months of
1792. But Jefferson’s distaste for the financial structure
erected by Hamilton increased during the summer and fail of
that year. To Carmichael he grudgingly admitted that the
domestic debt “funded at six per cent., is twelve and a half per
cent, above par.” “But,” he added, “a spirit of gambling,
in our public paper has seized too many of our citizens, and we
fear it will check our commerce, arts, manufactures, and agri-
culture unless stopped.” * To Gouverneur Morris he declared

I Jefferson Papers. Library of Congress, January 2, 1793
August 24, 1791. Memorial Edition, VIII, 229.

264 THOMAS JEFFERSON

that the fever of gambling on government funds has seized
everybody, “has laid up our ships at the wharves, as too slow
instruments of profit, and has even disarmed the hand of the
tailor of his needle and thimble. They say the evil will cure
itself. I wish it may ; but I have rarely seen a gamester cured,
even by the disasters of his vocation.” ^

One may wonder at this point what course of conduct was
open to JeSerson. He might have placed his views of the
situation before Washington and tried to open his eyes to the
danger of the Republic. He might have broken completely
with Hamilton and declared to the President that he had to
decide between the Secretary of the Treasury and the Secre-
tary of State, but as a matter of fact his hands were tied since
he had accepted the “Assumption” and had not dared cate-
gorically to decide against the Bank Bill. Apparently he had
reached an impasse. But it was not in Jefferson’s tempera-
ment to try to overcome insuperable obstacles or stay very
long in a blind alley. Since experience had shown that the
general government “tended to monarchy” and this tendency
strengthened itself from day to day, the only remedy was for
the States to erect “such barriers at the constitutional line
as cannot be surmounted either by themselves or by the
General Government.” ® An opportunity presented itself to
experiment with the idea in a proposed convocation of a
convention in Virginia to amend the Constitution. Jefferson,
consulted on this occasion, sent to Archibald Stuart his ideas
on the modifications desirable; to lengthen the term of the
representatives and diminish their number ; to strengthen the
Executive by making it more independent of the legislature.

Responsibility is a tremendous engine in a free government. Let
him feel the whole weight of it then, by taking away the shelter of
his executive council. Experience both ways has already established

t August 30, 1791. Memorial Edition, VIII, 241,

’ To John Adams, August 30, 1791. Ibid , VTII, 245.

THE QUARREL WITH HAMILTON 265

the superiority of this measure. Render the judiciary respectable
by every possible means, to wit, firm tenure in office, competent sala-
ries, and reduction of their numbers.

This was quite characteristic of Jefierson and of his extraor-
dinary tenacity. It was also very good strategy. Since the
strengthening of the Federal Government could not be avoided,
the only way to avoid a rapid absorption of local government
by the Federal machine was to strengthen in a parallel way
the State governments. It was an unexpected application of
Montesquieu’s theory of checks and balances.^

Soon afterwards, however, in February, 1792, Jefferson
found a favorable opportunity to reveal his ideas to Wash-
ington. The occasion that offered itself was the post-office,
just reorganized as an independent and self-supporting branch
of the government, thus removing it from the tutelage of the
Treasury Department. Jefferson at once claimed it for the De-
partment of State, not out of any appetite for power, “his real
wish” being to avail the public of every occasion, during the
residue of the President’s period, to place things on a safe foot-
ing. By this he meant that the usurpations of the Treas-
ury Department should be brought to a stop. In a long con-
versation the next morning after breakfast Jefferson opened
his heart, indicating that he would resign before long, to which
Washington answered that he could not resign when there were
certain signs of dissatisfaction among the public, and that none
could foresee what too great a change in the administration
might bring about. This was the opening awaited by Jef-
ferson. No wonder the public was dissatisfied, but whose
fault was it ! There was only one source of discontent, the
Department of the Treasury, Then he launched forth on a
passionate indictment of the system developed by Hamilton,
contrived for deluging the States with paper money instead of

1 December 23, 1 791. Memorial Edition, VIII, 273.

266 THOMAS JEFFERSON

gold and silver, “for withdrawing our citizens from the pur-
suits of commerce, manufactures, buildings, and other branches
of useful industry, to occupy themselves and their capitals in
a species of gambling, destructive of morality, and which had
introduced its poison in the government itself.” He indicated
that members of Congress had been gambling in stocks and
consequently could no longer be depended upon to vote in a
disinterested way, for they had “feathered their nests with
paper.” Finally Jefferson let the cat out of the bag and told
the President that the public were awaiting with anxiety his
decision with respect to a certain proposition, to find out
whether they lived under a limited or an unlimited govern-
ment. The report on manufactures which had not heretofore
drawn particular attention meant to establish the doctrine that
the power given by the Constitution to collect taxes to pro-
vide for the “general welfare of the United States, permitted
Congress to take everything under their management which
they should deem public welfare, and which is susceptible of the
application of money.” He added that his decision was there-
fore expected with far greater anxiety than that felt over the
proposed establishment of the Bank of the United States.^

On May 23, Jefferson had found it impossible to have again
a heart-to-heart talk with the President, and we may well im-
agine that Washington rather avoided giving him another
opportunity to express himself again so freely with reference to
the policy of the Treasury Department. The object of the
letter he wrote on that day was twofold ; first of aU it was to
persuade Washington that in spite of his so often manifested
intention to retire at the end of his first term, it was his im-
perious duty to the nation to remain in ofl&ce. There existed,
in Jefferson’s opinion, a real emergency and he pointed out at
length the dissatisfaction of the South, the separatist tend-
encies appearing in that quarter, upon seeing what they con-

^ March i, 1792. Memorial Edition, I, 292, “Anas ”

THE QUARREL WITH HAMILTON 267

sidered an unfair share of the Federal taxes placed on their
shoulders, not only in order to pay the national debt, but also
to encourage the Northern industries with bounties. Rumors
were circulating everywhere that new measures were on foot
to increase the mass of the debts ; industry was encouraged
at the expense of agriculture ; the legislature itself had been
corrupted. The only hope of salvation lay in the coming elec-
tion and in an increase in the number of representatives fol-
lowing the census. But everythmg would be in question if the
President did not run. ‘'The confidence of the whole Union
is centered in you. Y our being at the helm will be more than an
answer to every argument which can be used to alarm and lead
the people in any quarter, into violence and secession. North
and South will hang together if they have you to hang on.”

This incidentally does not sound hke a man who was trying
to organize a strong political party for his own benefit, and I
cannot believe that Jefferson was as deep a politician as Mr.
Bowers has made him. He was quite sincere in his desire to
retire from office “after the first periodical renovation of the
government.” He was tired and sick at heart, and his one
inclination was “bent irresistibly on the tranquil enjoyment
of his family, his farm and his books.” ^ On the other hand, he
was firmly convinced that the coming elections might change
favorably the majority in Congress. They had no chance to
be held fairly, however, unless the people had an opportunity
to select as President a man who would be above all suspicion,
a really national figure enjoying the confidence of every man
in every section of the country, such as was Washington alone.
Had Washington followed his inclination at tlrat time; had
he withdrawn at the end of his first term and left the field free
to other candidates, there is no way of surmising what the
issue of the campaign of 1792 would have been. Truly Jeffer-
son was right : the fate of the republic was at stake.

' 1 May 23, 1792. Memorial Edition, VIII, 341,

268 THOMAS JEFFERSON

Shortly after, Hamilton, who had not yet attacked Jeffer-
son personally, led an offensive against Freneau who was ac-
cused by the Gazette of the United States of using his salary for
publications, “the design of which is to villify those to whom
the voice of the people has committed the administration of
our public affairs. ” But Freneau, in Hamilton’s opinion, was
only the puppet whose strings were puUed by an arch plotter,
and soon the Gazette started direct attacks against Jefferson,
asserting that while a member of the Cabinet he had under-
taken to undermine the government. Freneau, in an affida-
vit, denied that Jefferson had any connection with his paper
or had dictated or written a single line in it, and at the same
time hinted that, on the contrary, the authorship of many
articles published in Fenno’s Gazette could clearly be attrib-
uted to Hamilton. This denial had precisely the value of
any such statement issued during political campaigns. It was
literally true that Jefferson had never written a line in Freneau’s
paper, but he had an opportimity to see Freneau every day,
since “clerk for foreign languages” had to report to him. He
was requesting aU his friends to subscribe to Freneau’s papers,
he was following anxiously the progress of the Gazette in all
parts of the Union, and one word from him would have stopped
aU attacks against Hamilton. In fact, Freneau’s paper was
just as much Jefferson’s paper as if the Secretary of State had
written all the articles in it and had owned all the stock.

Hamilton’s attacks, however, had a very important and
unexpected result. Whether Jefferson had serious political
ambitions or not, he was not the man to come out in the open
and proclaim himself the leader of a new party. Of a retiring
disposition, fearful of public criticism although thirsty for
public praise, he was not ready at that time to assume the
part and the duties of a political chief. But the savage at-
tacks of the Federalists attracted public attention to him, he
was represented so often by them as the champion of republic-

THE Quarrel with Hamilton 269

anism, that discontented republicans began to rally round
him and Jefferson was thus invested with the leadership of the
new party as much by his enemies as by his friends.

During the smnmer of 1792, when he was at Monticello, he
received from Washington a letter in which the President
expressed his distress at the dissensions that had taken place
within the government, and once more attempted to bring
about a reconciliation between the two secretaries (August 23) .
Jefferson answered in a long letter. This time his temper had
been thorougUy aroused. He had seen articles signed “An
American” in Fenno’s Gazette, accusing him on three counts:
“with having written letters to his friends in Europe to oppose
the present constitution; with a desire of repudiating the
public debt ; with setting up a paper to decry and slander the
government.” Jefferson had no difficulty in proving the first
two accusations absolutely untrue. On the third charge he
admitted and even boasted of having given a poet a miserable
appointment at a salary of $250 a year, while Hamilton had
filled the administration with his creatures. He protested in
the name of Heaven that “I never did, by myself, or any other,
directly or indirectly, write, dictate, or procure any one sen-
tence of sentiment to be inserted in Us, or any other gazette,
to which my name was not affixed or that of my office.” He
confessed, however, that he had always taken it for granted,
from his knowledge of Freneau’s character, “that he would
give free place to pieces written against the aristocratical and
monarchical principles these papers had inculcated.” He
agam protested against Hamilton’s insinuation that Freneau
had received his salary before removing to Philadelphia, and
on this point he is supported by the evidence published above.
In a very dignified way he assured Washington that he would
refrain from engaging in any controversy while in office and
that he wished to concentrate all his efforts on the last of his
official tasks. He added, however, that he reserved the right

270 TH 0 MASJEFFEE.S 0 N

to answer later, for, he said; “I will not suffer my retirement
to be clouded by the slanders of a man whose history, from the
moment at which history can stoop to notice him, is a tissue
of machinations against the liberty of the country which has
not only received and given him bread, but heaped honors on
his head.”

Jefferson has sometimes been reproached for having attacked in
the “Anas” a dead enemy, but this was no posthumous attack.
In one sentence he had expressed not only condemnation of
Hamilton's policies but all the scorn of a Virginian, of the old
stock, for the imm igrant of doubtful birth, who was almost an
alien. He knew full well the weight that such a consideration
might have on the mind of Washington ; it was a subtle but
potent appeal to the solidarity of the old Americans against
the newcomer. Truly, Jefferson was no mean adversary, and
the rapier may be more deadly than the battle-ax. Having
thus parried and thrust, he expressed the pious wish that the
coming elections would probably vindicate his point of view
and that it would not be necessary to make a further appeal to
public opinion. He was tired and wished to retire from office
at the earliest opportunity, and certainly no clique would
receive any support from him during the short space he had to
remain in Philadelphia. Monticello was calling him and his
most earnest hope was that he would be permitted to forget all
political strife in a bucolic retirement.^

On his way back to Philadelphia he stopped at Mount Ver-
non (October i, 1792) and found Washington stiU undecided
whether he would be a candidate for a second term. The Gen-
eral was not certain that the emergency was such that he must
sacrifice his personal preferences. He had consulted Lear
about opinion in the North; Jefferson cotdd tell him some-
thing about the South. When he was assured that he alone
could save the Republic, it was his turn to argue that Jeffer-

^ September 9, 1792 Memorial Edition, VIII, 408,

THE QUARREL WITH HAMILTON 271

son ought to remain in office as long as he himself would be
President. Washington said that until very recently he had
been unaware that such personal difierences existed between
the Secretary of State and the Secretary of the Treasury. The
old General gently reminded Jefferson that the best way to
counteract the action of Hamilton was to remain in office, in
order “to keep things in their proper channel, and prevent
them from going too far.” Finally the President refused to
accept wholly the pessimistic forecasts of Jefferson and de-
clared : “That as to the idea of transforming this Government
into a monarchy, he did not believe there were ten men in the
United States whose opinions were worth attention, who enter-
tained such a thought.” He refused to take seriously Jeffer-
son’s accusation that Hamilton would have said that “this
Constitution was a shilly-shally thing, of mere mOk and water,
which could not last, and was only good as a step to something
better.” That as far as corruption in the legislature was con-
cerned, the term was probably too severe; it was simply a
manifestation of “interested spirit”; it was what could not
be avoided in any government, imless we were to exclude from
all office particular descriptions of men, such as the holders of
the funds. “For the rest he only knew that before the fimding
operations he had seen our affairs desperate and our credit lost,
and that this was in a sudden and extraordinary degree raised
to the highest pitch.” With the common sense and poise that
were his outstanding qualities, Washington refused to inquire
into the ultimate motives of Hamilton. The Secretary of the
Treasury had rescued the finances of tlie country from bank-
ruptcy ; he was a good, efficient, and personally honest admin-
istrator, and it was Washington’s hope that he would be able
to keep with him two useful collaborators whom he could not
easily replace.

Shall I confess that, in my humble opinion, and in spite of the
contrary judgment of several American historians, Washington

CHAPTER II

JACOBIN OR AMERICAN?

One of the first duties of Jefferson in taking charge of foreign
affairs was to explain to his French friends, who on the other
side of the Atlantic had been accustomed to look up to him as
a guide and counsellor, the reasons which had determined his
choice to remain in America. To Madame de Corny, the
Duchesse Danville, the Due de La Rochefoucauld, Madame
d’Houdetot, he wrote gracefully worded notes, in the best style
of the society of the time. In France, among other things,
he had learned how to turn a charming compliment. More
official but stOl very graceful is the letter he sent to Mont-
morin to take formal leave of the French Court and at the same
time introduce himself in his new capacity. But besides the
compliments, there appears in the letter a reaffirmation that
the best foundation for international friendship lay in satis-
factory commercial relations. “May this imion of interests
forever be the patriotic creed of both countries.” ^ The new
Secretary of State had not forgotten that the most important
questions relative to Gallo-American commerce had not yet been
settled, and that it would be no negligible part of his duties to
carry out the principles he had always defended when in Paris.

To Lafayette, closer to his heart than any other French-
man, he explained more fully his view of the situation and stated
once more the principles which would direct him in his policy
towards France :

Wherever I am, or ever shall be, I shall be sincere in my friendship
to you and to your nation. I think with others, that nations are
1 April 6, 1790 Memorial Edition, VIII, 19

JACOBIN OR AMERICAN? 275

to be governed with regard to their own interests, but I am convinced
that it is their interests, in the long run, to be grateful, faithful to
their engagements, even in the worst of circumstances, and honorable
and generous always. If I had not known that the head of our
government was in these sentiments, and that his national and
private ethics were the same, I would never have been where I am ^

This was more than a banal compliment. To the homely
wisdom of Doctor Franklin that honesty is the best policy,
Jefferson had added a new element. He had combined in one
formula two principles which often seem contradictory and
which at any rate are difficult to reconcile. Not a mere ideal-
ist, nor simply a practical politician, he was, during the rest of
his political life, to make persistent efforts to propagate that
gospel of practical idealism which remains to this day one of
the fimdamental tenets of Americanism. In that respect,
party lines coimt little, and Lincoln was quite as much a disciple
and a continuator of Jefferson as Woodrow Wilson.

On the other hand, it cannot be denied that in many cir-
cumstances it would take more than superhuman virtue and
intelligence rightly to operate that ideal combination and
maintain an equal balance between national selfishness and
philosophical idealism. When it came to practice, Jefferson
showed himself just as canny as any European diplomat and
never neglected an opportunity to further the interests of his
cormtry. This appeared in the very first letters he sent to
Europe after taking charge of the foreign policies of the United
States.

Communications were slow at the time. Jefferson was kept
regularly informed of developments in France by Short, his
former secretary, left in charge in Paris, who sent him weekly
letters ; but they averaged eleven weeks and a half in transit,
while of his answers “the quickest were of nine weeks and the
longest of near eighteen weeks coming.” Information through

' April 2. Memorial Edition, VUI, it.

276 THOMAS JEFFERSON

the British papers took about five or six weeks to reach America
but was not to be relied upon, and Jefferson gave definite in-
structions to Short for “news from Europe is very interesting
at this moment, when it is so doubtful whether a war will take
place between our two neighbors.” ^

This was indeed at the time his main preoccupation. War
between Spain and England seemed not only possible but prob-
able, and Jefferson saw in it an opportunity to press the claims
of the United States to the navigation of the Mississippi. The
question was not “the claims of Spain to our territory north
of the thirty first degree and east of the Mississippi (they never
merited the respect of an answer), but the navigation of the
Mississippi and that was not simply to recognize the American
rights on the river.” Navigation “cannot be practiced with-
out a port, where the sea and river vessels may meet and ex-
change loads, where those employed about them may be safe
and unmolested.” The right to use a thing comprehends a
right to the means necessary to its use, and without which it
would be useless. Jefferson added that he could not ansAver
that “the forbearance of our western citizens would last in-
definitely, and that a moment of impatience, hazard or other
considerations might precipitate action on their part.” On the
other hand, the United States were in no position to antagonize
openly even weak Spain, and in case nothing should develop
Carmichael was instructed to bide his time :

You will be pleased to observe, that we press these matters warmly
and firmly, under this idea, that the war between Spain and Great
Britain will be begun before you receive this , and such a moment
must not be lost. But should an accommodation take place, we
retain, indeed, the same object and the same resolutions unalterably ,
but your discretion will suggest, that patience and persuasion must
temper your conferences, till either of these may prevail, or some
other circumstances turn up, which may enable us to use other

1 July 26, 1790. Memorial Edition, VIII, 6$

JACOBIN OR AMERICAN? 277

means for the attainment of an object which we are determined,
in the end, to obtain at every riskd

Naturally this is no worse than the ordinaiy run of instruc-
tions sent at that time to diplomatic agents by other foreign
secretaries, and Jefferson’s policy was no more underhanded
than the policies of any other nation of the Old World. It can-
not be said, however, that it rested upon higher and nobler
moral principles. Perhaps America had no diplomatic tra-
dition at that time, but she was not deficient in tactics, and
neither Jefferson nor his agents were exactly innocent tools in
the hands of wily European diplomats.

But this is not all. Jefferson unfolded his whole plan in a
letter to Short written a week later In case of a war between
England and Spain, France would be called into the war as an
ally on the side of Spain. She would have a right to insist
that Spain should do everything in her power to lessen the
number of her potential enemies and to eliminate every cause
of friction with the United States. "She cannot doubt
that we shall be of that number, if she does not yield our right
to common use of the Mississippi, and the means of using and
securing it.” The point made by the United States was that
"they should have a port near the mouth of the river, so well
separated from the territories of Spain and her jurisdiction, as
not to engender daily disputes and broils between us.” Such a
claim was not an arbitrary one, but resulted from the configu-
ration of the land. “Nature has decided what shall be the
geography of that in the end, whatever it might be in the begin-
ning, by cutting off from the adjacent countries of Florida and
Louisiana, and enclosing between two of its channels, a long and
narrow slip of land, called the Island of New Orleans.” Jeffer-
son conceded that the idea of ceding that territory might be
disagreeable to Spain at first, because it constituted their prin-
cipal settlement in those parts, with a population of ten thou-

' To Carmichael, August 2, 1790 Memorial Edition, VIII, 70

278 THOMAS JEFFERSON

sand white inhabitants, but “reason, and events, however, may,
by little and little, familiarize them to it.” The idea, however,
might seem excessive to Montmorin, particularly as it was
thought that France had not entirely given up the project of
recovering the country along the Mississippi. But fortunately
the National Assembly seemed opposed to conquest and the
subject might be broached merely in general terms at the begin-
ning. Furthermore, Lafayette could be used once more as an
intermediary without officially compromising the United States.^

Finally Gouvemeur Morris was told to warn England that
should they entertain any design against any Spanish colony,
the United States would contemplate a change of neighbors
with extreme uneasiness. While the United States would
remain neutral if “they execute the treaty fairly and attempt
no conquests adjoining us,” Jefferson added, “it will be proper
that these ideas be conveyed in delicate and friendly tenns;
but that they be conveyed, if the war takes place ; for it is in
this case alone, and not till it be begun, that we should wish our
dispositions to be known.”'* That question being disposed of
satisfactorily, at least in theory, for after all, the war did not
break out, Jefferson abandoned temporarily his plans to obtain
New Orleans, How he resumed them and pushed them to a
successful conclusion ten years later is too well known to need
recalling here.

It is not until February 4, 1791, that Jefferson expressed in
writing his hope to see a republican form of government estab-
lished in France. This was in direct contradiction with all the
advice and counsel he had given to his French friends when he
was in Paris, with his repeated afhrmations that the French were
not ready for self-government, and with the conclusions con-
tained in his letter written to Jay in the summer of 1789. None
of the developments that had taken place in France was of such

^ To Shoit, August 10, 1790. Memorial Edition, VIII, 79,

’ To Gouvemeur Morris, August 12, 1790. Ibid,, VIII, 85.

JACOBIN OR AMERICAN? 279

a character as to change Jefferson’s attitude on the matter.
But hi the meantime, he had come to tlie conclusion that the
fate of the republican government in the United States depended
largely on the failure or success of the French Revolution. If
it proved impossible for the French to establish a stable form
of self-government, if they could not withstand the attacks of
their foreign enemies, the conclusion would inevitably be drawn
m America that there was an inherent defect and weakness in
all republican governments. Thus the French Revolution had
already become an international issue, for the cause of liberty
could not remain secure for any length of time in America if it
were crushed in Europe. On that particular point Jefferson
himself was very explicit :

I look with great anxiety for the fii-m establishment of the new
government in France, being perfectly convinced that if it takes
place there, it will spread sooner or later all over Europe. On the
contrary, a check there would retard the revival of liberty in other
countries. I consider the establishment and success of their govern-
ment as necessary to stay up our own, and to prevent it from falling
back to that kind of half-way house, the English constitution. It
cannot be denied that we have among us a sect who believe that to
contain whatever is perfect in human institutions ; that the members
of this sect have, many of them, names and offices which stand high
in the estimation of our countrymen. I stiff rely that the great
mass of our community is untainted with these heresies, as is its
head. On this I build my hope that we have not labored in vain,
and that our experiment will stiff prove that men can be governed
by reason.^

On receiving the news that the National Assembly of France
had gone into mourning over the death of Franldin, Jefferson
sent to its President one of those letters worded in the “ felicitous
style” which he had perfected in France, His feelings were
sincere, he had great respect and affection for the Doctor, but he

1 To Colonel Mason, February 4, 1791. Memorial Edition, VIII, 123,

28o THOMAS JEFFERSON

knew what was expected of him, and with great skill, without
promising anything, or using any expression that might be
taken as a definite promise and turned against him later, he
made a vague but satisfactory appeal to a sort of international
friendship, praising the Assembly for having set the first example
and brought “into our fraternity the good and the great wher-
ever they have lived or died.” He ended with a reaffirmation
of the good dispositions of his government towards France ;
“ That these separations may disappear between us in all times
and circumstances, and that the union of sentiment which
mingles our sorrows on this occasion, may continue long to
cement the friendship and interests of our two nations, is our
constant prayer.” ^

This openly declared S3nnpathy for France and his hopes for a
new form of government did not in the least obscure his views
on the commercial difficulties between the two countries. The
bone of contention was stiU the question of commerce with the
West Indies. The National Assembly, on ratifying the consular
conventions, had showed little disposition to admit the right
of the United States to send consular agents to the West Indies.
In his opinion the word “Mats du roi” did not mean merely
France, but all colonial possessions of France as indicated in the
translation “French dominions.” He was not ready officially
to press the matter so as to cause difficulties between the two
nations and was willing to have the two agents already
appointed, “Skipwith at Martinique and Bourne at St. Domi-
nique”, ask for a regular exequatur.®

He elaborated on his policy with reference to the West Indies
in another letter to Short, written three months later. In it
will be found expressed more discreetly, but no less firmly, the
philosophy outlined already with reference to Spain and the
Mississippi. He maintained first of all that the United States

> To the President of the National Assembly, March 8, 1791. Memorial Edition,

VIII, 37. * To W. Short, April 2Si VIH, 183.

28 i

JACOBIN OR AMERICAN?

had no design whatever on the West Indies, for “If there be one
principle more deeply rooted than any other in the mind of every
American, it is that we should have nothing to do with con-
quest.’ ’ This principle once established, he proceeded to exam-
ine the situation from a practical point of view. The regulations
imposed by the French on their colonies are such that they
cannot trade directly with their neighbors; lor the supplies
necessary to relieve their mutual wants have to be carried first
to France in order to be exported either to the colonics or to
the American continent. This is contrary to the natural order
of things: “An exchange of surplusses and wants between
neighbor nations, is both a right and a duty mider the moral
law, and measures against right should be mollified in their
exercise, if it be wished to lengthen them to the greatest term
possible.” It seemed to Jefferson that such a right ought to be
recognized by any unprejudiced mind; but, unfortunately,
“Europeans in general have been too long in the habit of con-
founduig force with right with respect to America.” Circum-
stances are such that these rights caimot be pressed very strongly
and “ can be advanced only with delicacy ”, but what the United
States cannot do themselves, Lafayette perhaps can present
informally to his friends. He alone can make them understand
that, while they are establishing a new r6gime for their colonial
possessions of the West Indies, “in policy, if not in justice, they
should be disposed to avoid oppression, which, falling on us,
as well as on their colonies, might tempt us to act together.” ^

Was this a veiled threat ? Not exactly. It was an extension
of Montesquieu’s theory of laws to international relations, an
application of the theories of the French economists on free
trade. But even supposing that the theory itself had some
remote French origin, to a large extent it was new and typically
American. Only former colonies which had won their complete

1 See also my edition of the “Letters of Lafayette and Jefferson ”, chapter III. Paris,
Baltimore, igsg.

282 THOMAS JEFFERSON

independence could maintain that, in matters of trade, the col-
onies were completely independent of the metropolis, and that
commercial and geographical considerations should outweigh
political regulations. The United States were strongly inclined
to use every favorable opportrmity to make this principle obtain
in their relations with their neighbors, and what was a far
more dangerous thing, they considered this policy both “a right
and a duty under the moral law.” It was not political imperial-
ism to be sure, but in our days it certainly would be called com-
mercial imperialism under a moral disguise. At that time, it
was really a theory far in advance of both the theory and prac-
tice of any European nation, and it is very doubtful whether
Jefferson would have found justification for it in any of the
authorities on the law of nations he had consulted with reference
to the navigation of the Mississippi.^

There is no doubt that Jefferson fuUy realized aU the implica-
tions of his doctrine, for he submitted it to the President before
sending it to Short in cipher ; but he insisted that, if the con-
tents of his letter were permitted to leak out at a favorable
opportunity, "the National Assembly might see the impolicy
of insisting on particular conditions, which, operating as
grievances on us, as well as on their colonists, might produce a
concert of action.” ^

The news of the flight of the king was for him another evi-
dence of the “fruits of that form of government, which heaps
importance on idiots, and which the Tories of the present day
are trying to preach into our favor.” Then he added signifi-
cantly : “I still hope the French revolution will issue happily.
I feel that the permanence of our own leans in some degree
on that ; and that a failure there would be a powerful argument
to prove there would be a failure here.” ^

1 To W. Shoit, July 28, 1791. Memorial Edition, VIII, 217.

’ July 30, 1791. Ibid., VIII, 223.

* To Edward Rutledge, August 23, 1791. Ibid., VIU, 234,

JACOBIN OR AMERICAN? 283

Meanwhile his actions were far more cautious than his theories
would lead one to believe. Wlien the Santo Domingo Assembly
placed their situation before the Government of the United
States, asking for ammunition, arms, and provisions to be charged
against the money owed France by the United States, Jefferson
answered that although the United States had with them “some
common points of union in matters of commerce” he could not
do anything without the approbation of Ternant. When the
colonists asked him what would be the attitude of the United
States in case they became independent, Jefferson did not con-
ceal the fact that they would lay themselves open to any attack
by a strong nation and that their interest, as well as the interests
of the United States, was to see them retain their connection
with their mother country; and he finally decided to give
them such small supplies from time to time “as will keep them
from real distress, and to wait with patience for what would
be a surplus, tlU M. Ternant can receive instructions from
France. ... It would be unwise in the highest degree, that
the colonists should be disgusted with either France or us.” ^

He was soon to be deprived, however, of direct news from
France, for Short was transferred from Paris to the Hague and
Gouverneur Morris appointed Minister Plenipotentiary to
France.® He had to explain his policy to the new minister,
which he did on March 10, 1792, this time insisting that nothing
in the conduct or the views of the United States should cause
any apprehension to the French Government and that he
should allay all fears on that score.® But with Lafayette he
stiU insisted that if he did not mention the point again, it was
largely because he considered that it had been won :

We have been less zealous in aiding them, lest your government
should feel any jealousy on our account. But, in truth, we as

^ To Short, November 24, 1791. Memorial Edition, VUI, 261,

^ To Short, January 28, 1792, Ihid,, VIII, 297.

’ March 10, 1792. Ibid., VIll, 311.

284 THOMAS JEFFERSON

sincerely wish their restoration and connection with you, as you do
yourselves. We are satisfied that neither your justice nor their
distresses will ever again permit their being forced to seek at dear
and distant markets those first necessaries of life which they may
have at cheaper markets, placed by nature at their door, and formed
by her for their support.^

It was not until the latter part of 1792 that reiterated letters
from Morris, describing the situation and asking for instruc-
tions, forced Jefferson to make a very unportant declaration on
relations that could be transacted with revolutionary govern-
ments. There again he displayed the resourcefulness of a good
lawyer combined with the idealism of a political philosopher.
Having no hint of the form of government that the French were
to adopt, he thought it necessary to lay down certain principles
to direct the conduct of the American plenipotentiary in Paris.
They were substantially as follows ; The permanent principle
of the United States was to recognize any government “which is
formed by the will of the nation substantially declared.” If
the government to be formed by the French presented such a
character, there was no reason to doubt that the United States
would grant recognition, and Morris could proceed without
further ado to transact with them “every kind of business.”
On the other hand, the government estabhshed might present
an entirely different complexion and in that case the recogni-
tion might be more doubtful ; but even then it was to be con-
sidered as a de facto, if not a dejure government, and it was the
duty of the American minister to discuss some matters with
them in order to obtain concessions “reforming the unfriendly
restrictions on our commerce and navigation,” ® The question
as to Morris’ safety was left entirely to him to determine and
could not very well be the object of precise instructions.

Two weeks later, Jefferson himself had an opportunity to

1 To Lafayette, June i6, 1792. Memorial Edition, Vltl, 381.

* November 7, 1792, /iii., VUI, 437.

JACOBIN OR AMERICAN? 285

make a practical application of his policy. Although they had
received no formal authority from the National Assembly,
the United States were willing to contribute aids from time to
time to Santo Domingo, and were placing at their disposal for
December the sum of forty thousand dollars. But Jefferson
insisted that such moneys as were thus obtained were to be
spent in America where supplies could be had cheapest, “and
where the same sum would consequently effect the greatest
measure of relief to the colony.” Incidentally, it was spent
also for the greatest benefit of the American merchants, and
strengthened the commercial connection between the islands
and the American continent, a point not to be mentioned to the
French envoy, but well worth keeping in mind.^

At the beginning of 1793, Jefferson was not only inclined to
treat favorably the new French Government but resented
strongly any criticism of it. When he discovered that in several
letters his friend and disciple Short had censured the proceed-
ings of the French Jacobins, Jefferson, fearing that he had been
corrupted by aristocratic friendships, undertook to set him right
on the matter. He took the following view of the situation :

The contest had been between the Feuillant patriots favoring a
free constitution with an hereditary executive and the Jacobins who
thought that expunging that office was an absolute necessity. The
Feuillants had their day and their experiment had failed miserably.
The nation was with them in opinion and had finally won. Cer-
tainly in the struggle many guilty persons fell without the forms of
trial and innocents with them. But altogether they are to be con-
sidered as soldiers who have fallen during a battle ; their memory
will be embalmed by truth and time.

Meanwhile the only thing to consider was that the liberty of
the whole world depended on the issue of the contest :

Was ever such a prize won with so little innocent blood ? My own
affections have been deeply wounded by some of the martyrs to this
^ Novwnber ao, 3702. Meniorial Edition, VIII, 44 ^*

286

THOMAS JEFFERSON

cause, but rather than it should have failed I would have seen half
the earth desolated ; were there but an Adam and an Eve left in
every country, and left free, it would be better than as it is now.

Short was then severely rebuked for having expressed in
conversations sentiments offensive to the French patriots. He
was reminded that there were in the United States “some char-
acters of opposite principles hostile to France, and fondly look-
ing to England as the staff of their hopes. Their prospects have
certainly not brightened, . . . The successes of republicanism
in France have given the coup de grace to their prospects, and
I hope to their projects.” This was to be kept in mind by
Short, and, as Jefferson intended to retire at an early date,
he called his attention to the fact that not knowing who his
successor would be and into whose hands his further communi-
cations would fall, he had better be prudent and not let his
“too great sensibility to the misfortunes of some dear friends
obscure his republicanism.” ^

In a commimication to Gouverneur Morris, Jefferson was
more reserved but no less insistent upon the principle that the
French Government was a government de jure as well as de
facto :

We surely cannot deny to any nation that right whereon our own
government is founded, that every one may govern itself according
to whatever form it pleases, and change these forms at its own will ;
and that it may transact its business with foreign nations through
whatever organ it thinks proper, whether King, Convention,
Assembly, Committee, President, or anything else it may choose.
The will of the nation is the only essential thing to be regarded.
Such being the case, the United States not only should continue to
pay the installment on the debt but use their utmost endeavors to
make punctual payments. Urged by the strongest attachment to
that country, and thinking it is even providential that moneys lent
to us in distress could be repaid under like circumstances, we had no

' January 3, 1793. Memorial Edition, EX, 9.

287

JACOBIN OR AMERICAN?

hesitation to comply with the application, and arrangements are
accordingly taken, for furnishing this sum at epochs accommodated
to the demands and our means of paying it.

This was the doctrine of national gratitude reaffirmed and
illustrated, but naturally relations could not be placed on
an entirely sentimental basis. Morris was instructed at the
same time “to use and improve every possible opportunity
which may occur in the changeable scenes which are passing,
and to seize them as they occur, for placing our commerce with
that nation and its dependencies, on the freest and most encour-
aging footing possible.” ^

A week later news of the execution of the king arrived at
Philadelphia. For the fate of Louis XVI, Jefferson felt and
expressed little personal regret. He never held the monarch
in high esteem : furthermore, the example set by France might
teach a good lesson to other autocrats and “soften the monar-
chical governments, by rendering monarchs amenable to punish-
ment like other criminals, and doing away with that rage of in-
solence and oppression, the inviolability of the King’s person.” ®
Here again it is evident that domestic considerations were
uppermost in Jefferson’s mind. Never could one correct too
vigorously those who wished to establish a monarchy in the
United States. Whether he was justified or not, Jefferson sin-
cerely believed that the American republic was in danger, and
his attitude at that time reflects his fear of the monocrats
more than any real sympathy for the French Terrorists.

Thus spoke Jefferson, the party man, and he made no mystery
of his sentiments either in his conversations or m his private
letters. The Secretary of State, however, could not easily af-
ford to adopt publicly the same attitude. Early in February
Colonel W. S. Smith had brought the intelligence that the
French Minister Ternant, whose royalist opinions shocked the

^ To G. Morris, March xi, 1793. Memorial Edition, IX, 3 7,

’ To , March 18, 1793. ibid , IX, 43.

288 THOMAS JEFFERSON

French sympathizers in Philadelphia, would be recalled and
Citizen Genet would be sent in his place by the Republic. It
was already Icnown that Genet would bring very advantageous
propositions to the United States, for he would come

with full powers to give us all the privileges we can desire in their
countries, and particularly m the West Indies ; that they even con-
template to set them free the next summer ; that they proposed to
emancipate South America, and will send forty-five ships of the
line there next spring, and Miranda at the head of the expedition ;
that they desire our debt to be paid them in provisions, and have
authorized him to negotiate this.^

On the other hand it was to be feared that Genet would
remind the American Government of the existence of the
Treaty of 1778, by which the United States agreed to give dis-
tinct advantages to French privateers and to guarantee the
integrity of the French West Indies. It was not until April
that it was known war had been declared between France and
England. Were the United States going to be dragged into the
European convulsions and would they have to side openly with
their former ally? Acting on the information received from
Colonel Smith, JeSerson quickly wrote to Carmichael and
Short, asking them to refrain from mentioning the Louisiana
question to Spain, and chiefly to be very careful not to “bind us
to guarantee any of the Spanish colonies against their own
independence, nor indeed against any other nation.” Jefferson
believed that there was a possibility of seeing France encourage
the Spanish colonies to revolt and would not have objected “to
the receiving those on the east side into our confederation.”
This was an eventuality not to be lightly dismissed, and once
more Jefferson’s uppermost preoccupation was not to please
the French Revolutionists but to further the interests of his
country,® But before deciding upon any course of action it was

’■“Anas", February 20, 1793.

® To Messrs. Carmichael and Short, Mardi 23, 1793. Memorial Edition, IX, 55.

JACOBIN OR AMERICAN? 289

advisable to temporize and to find out from what quarter the
wind was about to blow. The only thing to do for the present
was to wait and to avoid any unpleasant complications with
the powers at war ; and first of aU to see to it that the United
States should enjoy the rights and privileges of a complete
neutrality. Jefferson began sending instructions to that effect
to Samuel Shaw, consul at Canton, China.^ Two days later
he wrote even more explicitly to Dumas: “We wish not to
meddle with the internal affairs of any country, nor with the
general affairs of Europe. Peace with all nations, and the
right which that gives us with all nations are our objects. It
will be necessary for all our public agents to exert themselves
with vigUance for securing to our vessels all the rights of neu-
trality, and from preventing the vessels of other nations from
usurping our flags.” ^

As the cabinet met only one month later (April 18) at the
request of Washington to discuss the proclamation of neu-
trality, it is not without importance to call attention to the
date and the text of that letter. Winning Jefferson over
to the position finally adopted by the American Government
could not present insuperable difficulties since he had already
outlined the same policy even before consulting with the
President, and on his own initiative had sent instructions to
the agents.

When the Cabinet met to consider the emergency, and the
several secretaries were invited by Washington to submit their
opinions in writing, the course to be followed was officially
agreed upon and Washington issued the famous Proclamation
of Neutrality on April 22, — the very same day the new minister
from France landed at Charleston. Jefferson did not lose an}'
time notifying the American agents abroad of the policy of the
United States, repeating substantially the instructions already

' March 21, 1793. Memorial Edition, IX, 49.

^ To C, W. Dumas, Match 23, 1793. Ibii., IX, 57.

290 THOMASJEFFERSON

sent to Dumas one naonth before.^ At the same time Ternant
was officially notified that credits opened in favor of the West
Indies had to be stopped ; ® as the emergency had passed and
a regular government had been established in France, money
could be appropriated from the regular installments paid on
the debt.

According to a letter written to Monroe/ Jefferson saw with
a secret pleasure, the monocrat papers publish the most furious
philippics against England, and the old spirit of 1776 rekindled
from Charleston to Boston. He expressed the pious wish that
“we may be able to repress the spirit of the people within the
limits of fair neutrality.” But he revolted against what he
considered a subservient attitude to England on the part of
Hamilton. It is one of the fewoccasions in which he departed in
a letter (I do not count the “Anas”) from his judicial attitude :
“In the meantime,” he said, “Hamilton is panick struck, if we
refuse our breech to every kick which Great Britain may choose
to give it. In order to preserve even a sneaking neutrality a
fight is necessary in every council for our votes are generally two
and a half against one and a half.”

Jefferson’s private opinion might have favored the French
Revolution, as it undoubtedly did. I do not see, however,
that in any important circumstance he departed from the
strict line of neutrality which he had traced for the country.

He sent instructions to Thomas Pinckney ^ to the effect that,
in order to avoid any violation of neutrality, passports could be
issued to vessels only in American ports ; that “in other lands
American citizens were free to purchase and use any foreign
buUt vessels, as those were entitled to the same protection as
home built vessels.” That all vessels belonging to citizens of
the United States loaded with grain to the port of one of the

1 To E. P. Van Berckel, April 23, 1793. To Morris, Pinckney and Short, April 26,
1793, Memorial Edition, IX, 68-69.

’ April 27, 1793. 7°-

‘ May 3, 1793. /W., IX, 75' * May 7, 1793. IWd., IX, 79.

THOMAS JEFFERSON
From the portrait by Rembrandt Peale

JACOBIN OR AMERICAN? 291

belligerents could not be stopped by the other belligerent if
going to an unblockaded port.

Then Genet, stiU at Charleston and before being regularly
accredited, took upon himself to outfit privateers and to com-
mission them. “The British ship Grange, while lying at
anchor in the bay of Delaware, within the territory and juris-
diction of the United States, was taken possession of by the
Embus cade, a frigate of the French Republic, brought to port
where she was detained as a prize and the crew kept prisoners.” ^
Ternant was asked to detain the vessel, waiting for a decision to
be taken concerning the representations of the British minister,
Hammond. But it will be seen in Jefferson’s letter to Ham-
mond ^ that he did not hesitate to grant that the capture of the
Grange was not “warranted by the usage of nations, nor by the
existing treaties between the United States and France”, nor,
Jefferson added, “by any law of the land.” On the other hand
he maintained that agents of the French Government were free
to purchase “arms and military accoutrements” with an intent
to export them to France, and that citizens of the United States
could sell such articles, being duly warned, however, that they
were subject to confiscation should they fall into the hands of
a belligerent.

Indeed, it took all the calamitous blunders of Genet to turn
Jefferson against him. From Charleston, where he had landed,
to Philadelphia, his march had been a triumph. The citizens of
Philadelphia, hearing that the President might refuse to receive
him, had even decided to give him an ovation and to meet him
at Gray’s Ferry. Fie delivered his credentials on May 18, and
at once communicated the object of his mission in a style which
now appears grandiloquent, but simply reflected that enthusi-
asm for America which was running so high in France at the
time. “In short,” wrote Jefferson to Madison, “he offers

'To Temant, May 3, 1793, Memorial Edition, IX, 74.

' May IS, 1793. Ibid., IX, 89.

292

THOMAS JEFFERSON

everything, and asks nothing.” ^ This was too good to be
true, and too wonderful to last long.

Less than three weeks later (June 5) Jefferson had to send to
Genet strong representations on his attitude and pointed out
several breaches of neutrality, particularly in the arming of
French privateers in American ports, stating rather stiffly that
it was “ the right of every nation to prohibit acts of sovereignty
from being exercised by any other nation within its limits and
the duty of a neutral nation to prohibit such as would injure
one of the warring powers.”

But in a letter to Hammond he stated that the measures could
not be retrospective. In the first days of the war, French
citizens, duly commissioned by the authorities of their country,
had captured British vessels. It was impossible for the United
States to rescue those vessels from the captors. All that could
be done was to prevent the repetition of such an incident and
to order the departure of all French privateers from the ports
of the United States. It was fine legal reasoning, not without
some of that hairsplitting for which Jefferson reproached
Randolph. Whether Randolph had a hand or not in the reach-
ing of that decision is another question. Jefferson indorsed it
in transmitting it both to Hammond and Genet.

Another proposition of Genet did not meet with more favor-
able approval. The Republic was hard pressed for money, and
the new plenipotentiary had been requested to make every
possible effort 'Ho obtain payment in one lump sum of all the
annuities coming to France, taking the debt in produce if neces-
sary, or changing it into bonds to be sold to the public.” To
this Jefferson was unequivocally opposed, although he referred
the President to Hamilton. He recommended payment in
advance of the installments due for the year, but strongly
objected to changing the form of the debt.® He wrote, further-

^Mayig, 1793. Memorial Edition, IX, 98.

’ June 6, 1789. Ibid., IX, 115.

JACOBIN OR AMERICAN? 293

more, to Gouverneur Morris to acquaint him with the situation
and to request him “to prevent any such proposition in the
future from being brought forward.” ^

As a matter of fact, although Jefferson expressed pious and
fervent wishes for the success of the French, I cannot see that
he officially did much to further their cause. He was not even
pleased by the agitation and propaganda in their behalf carried
on in America by enthusiastic patriots. This appears very
clearly in a letter to his son-in-law, Thomas Mann Randolph,
which, better than any official document, indicates his state of
mind at the end of June, 1793 :

The French have been guilty of great errors in their conduct
towards other nations, not only in insulting uselessly all crowned
heads, but endeavoring to force liberty on their neighbors in their
own form. They seem to be correcting themselves on the latter
point ; the war between them and England embarrasses our govern-
ment daily and immensely. The predilection of our citizens for
France renders it very difficult to suppress their attempts to cruise
against the English on the ocean, and to do justice to the latter in
cases where they are entitled to it.®

Monroe had sent him a long dissertation on the proclamation
of neutrality which he judged both “unpolitick and unconstitu-
tional” ; for, if the President “possesses the right to say we shall
be neutral, he might say we should not be.” “

To this Jefferson answered that his friends’ apprehensions
were somewhat exaggerated, for the United States being at
peace with England, the so-called proclamation of neutrality —
which, by the way, did not contain the word neutrality — did
nothing but maintain a status quo. This was a fine legal dis-
tinction, not very convincing, but very characteristic of Jeffer-
son’s state of mind at that time and of his reluctance to favor

* Jiuie 13, 1789. Memorial Edition, IX, 123.

* JeiferBon Papers. Library of Congress, June 24., 1703.

Library of Congress, June 27, 1793 and Writings of J. Monroe, I, 261.

294

THOMAS JEFFERSON

the French side. Had he ever wished to do it, the attitude of
the French envoy would have soon forced him to adopt a
different policy.

The case of Citizen Genet is too well known to require
elaborate treatment. Less than six weeks after his arrival in
Philadelphia, Jefferson had given him up as hopeless and
dangerous :

Never in my opinion, was so calamitous an appointment made, as
that of the present minister of France here. Hot headed, all
imagination, no judgment, passionate, disrespectful & even indecent
towards the President in his written as well as verbal communica-
tions, talking of appeals from him to Congress, from them to the
people, urging the most unreasonable & groundless propositions, &
in the most dictatorial style.^

The case of the Little Sarah, a British prize, taken to Pliiladel-
phia and refitted as a privateer by Genet’s orders, brought the
matter to a head. Genet was warned that the vessel could not
sail ; he refused to give definite assurances that it would not be
ordered to sea. Washington was away at the time, and Knox
and Hamilton proposed moimting a battery of cannon to pre-
vent the sailing of the vessel, a measure strongly opposed by
Jefferson, determined to avoid at all cost measures tantamount
to a declaration of war. The Little Sarah and the Democrat
escaped, and Washington in vehement words manifested his
disapproval of the weakness shown on this occasion. The
least the American Government could do was to ask that Genet
be recalled, and it was so decided at a meeting of the Cabinet on
August 3, In a long letter intended for theFrench Government,
but sent to Gouverneur Morris and communicated to Genet
himself, Jefferson drew up a terrible indictment of the French
minister. Hamilton and Knox were decidedly in favor of
stronger measures and of deciding then and there upon the
" renvoi” of Genet. Jefferson, following his constant policy, was

‘ To J. Madison, Jidy 7, 1793, Ford, vn, 436,

29S

JACOBIN OR AMERICAN?

against a measure that could be construed as the recognition
that a state of war existed between the two countries. This
has been sometimes interpreted as evincing partiality to France
on his part, but entries in the “Anas” under August 20 and
August 23 demonstrate beyond any doubt that he was also
guided by his uppermost desire to promote the interests of his
country.

There was at least some reason to believe that Genet’s con-
duct would not receive the support of his Government, and on
the other hand he had brought over with him certain proposals
worth considering for a treaty referring to the commerce with
the West Indies. Although the Cabinet hadnever considered the
question formally, Jefferson estimated the matter of such impor-
tance that he had taken it upon himself to discuss it with Genet
in several conversations. To leave the friendly overtures of the
French Republic without any answer would not only be insulting
but highly unpolitic, since the Executive might be accused “of
neglecting the interests of the United States.” Under these
circumstances some means had to be foimd of sparing the
feelings of the French Government, so as not to lose entirely the
chances of concluding a treaty so advantageous to the United
States. As Secretary of State, Jefierson had to find a satisfac-
tory formula. This was to ask the French Government to recall
Genet, but at the same time to appoint his successor and to
renew to this successor the powers granted originally to Genet.
Such was the tenor of his letter to Morris, a very clever solution
to a very difficult situation. As for Genet himself, he was to be
tolerated until the arrival of his successor.

Unfortunately the “citizen” did not know how to keep quiet
or when to quit. Not a dishonest man in ordinary life, not
even an unintelligent man, he was the greatest bungler ever sent
by a friendly nation to another. When he arrived in May,
1793, he had public opinion largely in his favor. Members of
Congress and of the government, except possibly Hamilton,

296 THOMAS JEFFERSON

were not hostile to France j the French envoy could have
obtained distinct advantages for his country if he had proceeded
slowly and with ordinary caution. Two months later he had
succeeded in turning against himseK and against the country he
represented the whole of public opinion, in sowing germs of dis-
trust never to be eradicated, in fixing and crystallizing all sorts
of prejudices and unfavorable generalizations about France.

Jefferson had made all possible efforts to keep the disaffection
of the American Government toward the French minister as
much under cover as possible. But Citizen Genet threw down
the gauntlet by publishing part of his official correspondence,
thus forcing an appeal to the people and running the risk of
arousing the “disgusts ” Jefferson had so much wished to avoid.^
A week later, he had to admit to Madison that Genet’s conduct
“has given room to the enemies of France to come forward in a
style of acrimony against that nation which they never dared to
have done. The disapprobation of the agent mingles with the
reprehension of his nation and gives a toleration to that which
it never had before.” ^

By a strange irony of fate, one of the last acts of Jefferson as
Secretary of State was a final protest against Genet’s attitude.
Six months before he had been notified that he could not be
received by the Executive and that all communications from
him had to be made in writing. Deciding to appeal to Congress
over the head of the President, Genet had copies of his instruc-
tions printed, demanding that they should be laid before both
houses. A more stupid and childish step could hardly be
imagined. Jefferson, requested by the President to draw up an
answer to Genet, wrote at first a scathing denunciation of the
French minister which was probably thought too strong, for it
is marked “not inserted” on the manuscript : ^

' To James Madison, August 2 S> 17 Q 3 Memorial Edition, IX, 211.
’ To Madison, September 1, 1793 Ibid., IX, 2ti.

’ Jefferson Papers. Library of Congress, 15832.

JACOBIN OR AMERICAN? 297

The terms in which you permit yourself in this and some other of
your letters to speak of the President of the U. S., and the influence
and impressions you venture to ascribe to him, are calculated to
excite sentiments which need no explanation. On what grounds of
truth they are hazarded, how to reconcile them to decorum, to the
respect due to the person and character of our chief magistrate,
and to the nation over which he presides and that loo from the
representative of a friendly people, are questions left to your mature
reflection.

The letter which was finally sent, more moderate in its terms,
was nevertheless a formal reminder of diplomatic proprieties :

Your functions as the missionary of a foreign mission here, are
confined to the transactions of the aSairs of your nation with the
Executive of the United States ; that the communications, which
are to pass between the Executive and Legislative branches, cannot
be a subject for your interference, and that the President must be
left to judge for himself what matters his duty or the public good
may require him to propose to the deliberations of Congress. I have
therefore the honor of returning you the copies sent for distribution^

That very same day Jefferson resigned his ofl&ce into the
hands of Washington, assuring him that in his retirement he
was taking with him “a lively sense of the President’s goodness,
and would continue gratefully to remember it.” ®

‘ December 31, 1793. MemotUl Edition, IX, 277.

* December 13, 1793. 279.

CHAPTER III

MONTICELLO — AGRICULTURE AND POLITICS

When Jefferson left Philadelphia for what he sincerely
believed would be definite retirement from the field of politics,
he felt weary, tired, and already old. He had transacted all
the business of his office with a minimum of clerical assistance,
attending himself to all the details not only of foreign but also
of domestic affairs, sometimes translating documents which he
did not trust Freneau with, preparing reports for the President,
digging in his manuals of international law, Wolfe, Puffendorff,
Vatel, and Grotius. The actual labor was enormous, the
variety of subjects amazing ; many times during the course of
a day he had to shift from one subject to another. Under fire
all the time, harassed by the Federalist papers, consulted by
the leaders of the party which was beginning to form, he had not
broken down under the strain, but was in urgent need of com-
plete rest and agricultural quietude. He had packed books and
furniture in advance and sent everything to Monticello ; his
letter to Genet written, he set out for Virginia without even
waiting for the justification that would result from the order to
publish his correspondence with the French minister.

At that time a vague idea that he could turn a new leaf and
start a new life may fugitively have crossed his mind. He
had respectfully but profoundly admired Madame de Corny
when he was in Paris. News from her had come through
Mrs. Church ; Mr. de Corny had died ; Madame de Corny left
a widow in very limited circumstances had retired to Rouen.^

* Angelica Church to Jefferson, August ig, 1793. Chinatd, “Trois Amitife Fran-
caises”, p 153.

MONTICELLO — AGRICULTURE 299

It seems that he entertained the hope that she might decide to
move to America and in that case he -would have liked to see her
at Monticello : “Madame de Cosway is in a convent . . . that
she would have rather sought the mountain-top. How happy
should I be that it were mine, that you, she, and Madame de
Corny would seek.” But he had seen too many of these bril-
liant French women in Philadelphia to believe that a Parisian
could ever become accustomed to the simplicity of Monticello
and to its lack of entertainments, and he made the suggestion
very timidly . “ I know of no country where the remains of a
fortune could place her so much at her ease as this, and where
public esteem is so much attached to worth, regardless of
wealth ; our manners & the state of society here are so different
from those to which her habits have been formed, that she
would lose more perhaps in that scale.” After ah, he had not
changed so much since he had declared his flame to Belinda,
almost in the same terms, twenty years earlier. This was the
t3^ical Jeffersonian way of presenting his own wishes, of letting
the others decide after he had stated the pros and cons ; clearly
he was not made to -win personal triumphs, either in love or
in politics.

Of politics he was utterly sick. He pictured himself spending
the rest of his days in bucolic occupations. “ The length of my
tether is now fixed for life from Monticello to Richmond,” he
wrote to Gates. “My private business can never call me else-
where, and certainly politics wfll not, which I have ever hated
both in theory and practice.” ^

Writing to Mrs. Church, he had gone into more details.

I am to be liberated from the hated occupations of politics retire
into the bosom of my family, my farm, & my books. I have my
house to build, my family to form, and to watch for the happiness of
those who labor for mine. I have one daughter married to a man of
science, sense, virtue and competence ; in whom indeed I havenoth-
> Jefferson Papers. Library of Congress, February, 1794.

300

THOMAS JEFFERSON

ing more to wish. They live with me. If the other shall be as
fortunate in the process of time, I shall imagine myself as blessed as
the most blessed of the patriarchs.’'

At Monticello he found Martha and her husband, Thomas
Mann Randolph, and induced the young couple to stay with
him. Maria was now a tall girl, vivacious and witty, who
would soon find a suitor. Devoting himself entirely to his
family and domestic cares, Jefferson plunged into the reorgani-
zation of his estate left to an overseer for more than ten years,
and granted so little attention to politics that he did not even
subscribe to any newspaper, being quite content with those
published at Richmond. “I think it is Montaigne who has
said that ignorance is the softest pillow on which a man can
rest his head,” he wrote to Edmund Randolph. “I am sure it
is true as to everything political, and shall endeavor to estrange
myself to everything of that character.” ^ Since that time
there have been in American politics many instances of politi-
cians who left for a hunting party, or retired to their farms in
order to avoid responsibility. This was not the attitude of
JeSerson j his was no temporary retirement while waiting for
the storm to blow itself over. Had he chosen to remain in
Philadelphia, as he had been asked to do by Washington, he
would have at least checked Hamilton’s personal influence and
counterbalanced in Washington’s mind the advice and counsels
of his enemy. His party had been reorganized and the republi-
cans had just obtained a majority in the new Congress, but his
principles were far from being secure. He indicated it himself
in the same letter to Randolph when he wrote :

I indulge myself on one political topic only, that is, in declaring
to my countrymen the shameless corruption of a portion of the
Representatives to the first and second Congresses, and their implicit
devotion to the Treasury. I think I do good in this, because it

* “ATiiiti^s franpaises”, p. i6i

* February 3, 1794. Memorial Edition, IX, 379.

MONTI CELLO— AGRICULTURE 301

may produce exertions to reform the evil on the success of which the
form of the government is to depend

Shortly after coming back to Monticello, he discovered,
somewhat to his dismay, that the rank and file of the good
people of the country did not pay much attention to the political
battle which was still raging in Philadelphia. He went to
'‘court” at Charlottesville at the beginning of February and
was amazed to find that his neighbors had not heard of
Madison’s speeches in Congress or even of the recall of Genet.

I could not have supposed — ■ he wrote to Madison — when at
Philadelphia that so little of what was passing there could be known
even at Kentucky as is the case here. Judging from this of the rest
of the Union, it is evident to me that the people are not in a condi-
tion either to approve or disapprove of their government, nor conse-
quently to influence it.^

This would tend to give confirmation to the supposition I
timidly ventured in the last chapter. Neither the inflammatory
speeches made in Congress, nor the foundation of democratic
clubs, nor the newspaper battle between diSerent editors had
been able to rouse the people of the country. In America, as
in every other country, the rural population, at that time the
majority of the population, remained passive and took little
interest in discussions that did not immediately affect their
interests. Then, too, as in our days, the press was able to
modify and to influence to some extent public opinion, but did
not express it. Editors were years in advance of the slow-
moving masses in their prognostications. It takes a national
emergency, a violent crisis or a well-organized political machine
to coalesce the great majority of a people and force them to see
beyond the limited horizon of their village, their county or
their State. This is so even now, and it was certainly so a cen-
tury and a half ago, when the parochial and provincial spirit was
still stronger than the national spirit.

1 Jefferson Papers. Library of Congress, February is, i794.

302

THOMAS JEFFERSON

Since this was realized by Jefferson, it is difficult to under-
stand how he did not come to the conclusion that his clear duty
was to go back to Philadelphia and do his utmost to educate an
apathetic people. But he was not the man to enjoy strife and
struggle ; he was too sensitive of personal criticism and attacks,
too timid also to care to exchange blows with an opponent. He
was the type of man who likes to play chess by correspondence,
to suggest solutions, but not the one “to knead the dough”,
as the French say, and to take an active part in the daily
game of politics.

From his retirement he found time to answer letters from
Madison and Monroe. Before leaving Philadelphia, he had
transmitted to the House of Representatives a Report on the
Privileges and Restrictions of the Commerce of the United
States.^ It was incumbent upon Madison to draw from it
specific recommendations. Jefferson pointed out in a dis-
passionate way the obstacles put by Great Britain to the growth
of American commerce, her lack of reciprocal treatment, her
prohibitions and restrictions. He ended by indicating that
France had, of her own accord, proposed negotiations for
improving the commercial relations between the two countries
by a new treaty on fair and equal principles ; that her internal
disturbances alone had prevented her from doing it, though
the government had repeatedly manifested reassuring disposi-
tions. On the contrary, “in spite of friendly advances and
arrangements proposed to Great Britain, they being already on
as good a footing in law, and a better in fact, than the most
favored nation, they have not, as yet, discovered any disposi-
tion to have it meddled with.” As a remedy, pending the
conclusion of treaties, Jefierson laid down five principles to
protect American commerce and retaliate in so far as would
not hurt the interests of the American people, although at the
beginning trade might suffer from it. A storm broke out in

^ December i6, 1793 Memorial Edition, HI, 261-283.

MONTICELLO — AGRI CULTURE 303

Congress, and once more Jefferson became the target of the
Federalists.

He was not uninformed of these developments, for Madison
and Monroe sent him several letters at short intervals at the
beginning of March ; nor did he leave his lieutenants without
directions. He still hoped that a war could be avoided ; but he
could not conceive that it would be possible in any event to let
Great Britain seize the French West Indies : “I have no doubt
that we ought to interpose at a proper time, and declare both
to France and England that these islands arc to rest with
France, and that we will make a common cause with the latter
for that object.” Having thus outlined these policies, he
relapsed into his ataraxy, affirming that he had not seen a
Philadelphia paper until he had received those inclosed by
Madison. The patience of Monroe must have been taxed to
the breaking point when, after sending to his chief a long letter
full of detailed infonnation, he received in answer an equally
long letter replete with agricultural disquisitions — “ on such
things as you are too little of a farmer to take much interest
in.” ^

The supposed leader of the Republicans was not more encour-
aging in his letters to Madison when he wrote a month later :
“I feel myself so thoroughly weaned from the interest I took in
the proceedings there, while there, that I have never a wish to
see one [a newspaper], and believe that I shall never take
another paper of any sort. I find my mind totally absorbed
by my rural occupation.” ® Yet the old fame flared up occa-
sionally, as when he learned that Hamilton was being considered
to succeed Pinckney who would be recalled from England : “a
more degrading measure could not have been proposed,” he
wrote to Monroe. In regard to Hamilton, he foresaw an

* Jefferson Papers. Library of Congress, March 3, and March ii, 1794.

’ April 3, 1794. Memorial Edition, IX, aSr and Manuscript Library of Congress,
March x 6 .

304

THOMAS JEFFERSON

investigation on the Treasury and had wanted to withdraw
before it took placed

But he fell back into the same detached attitude of mind,
when he wrote to Washington the next day : “ I return to farm-
ing with an ardor which I scarcely knew in my youth, and which
has got the better entirely of my love of study. Instead of
writing ten or twelve letters a day, which I have been in the
habit of doing as a thing of course, I put off answering my letters
now, farmer-like, till a ramy day.”

As a matter of fact, I doubt very much whether he had
reached any such equanimity. For if he was unwilling to
reenter public life, he was not averse to giving his opinion and
advice in critical circumstances. While Madison’s resolutions
were stiU before Congress, news arrived in Philadelphia of the
seizure of American ships in the Caribbean, under the Order in
Council of November 6. Indignation was running high and
democratic societies held patriotic meetings throughout the
country. War seemed imminent, and although Jefferson pre-
ferred to contemplate the tranquil growth “of his lucern and
potatoes”, he stiff felt indignant when thinking “of these
scoundrels” (the British). Yet he believed that war should be
avoided and wrote to that effect to Tench Coxe :

We are alarmed here with the apprehension of war ; and sincerely
anxious that it may be avoided ; but not at the expense either of our
faith or honour. ... As to myself I love peace, and I am anxious
that we should give the world still another useful lesson, by showing
to them other modes of punishing injuries than by war, which is as
much a punishment to the punisher as to the sufferers.®

To Washington he wrote two weeks later a most amusing
letter, starting with a dissertation on crop rotation and “a
certain essence of dung, one pint of which would manure an acre
according to Lord Kaims ”, but not forgetting, in a negligent

* April 24, 1794. Jefferson Papers, Library of Congress.

2 May I, 1794. Memorial Edition, IX, 285.

MONTI CELLO — AGRICULTURE 305

way, to slip in at the end a piece of political advice: “to try
to extricate ourselves from the event of a war ; at the same lime
to try to rouse public opinion in Great Britain and the only way
to do it being to distress their commerce.” But he added once
more, “I cherish tranquillity too much to suffer political things
to enter my mind at all. ” ^ This was nothing but the non-inter-
course policy then debated by the government and of which
Jefferson had evidently heard. When his letter reached the
President, a solution had already been adopted and Jay had
sailed for England on the mission which was to end with his
signing the famous or infamous treaty. The summer went on
without any new letter from Jefferson. A letter of the Secre-
tary of State, asking him whether he would not consider lending
a hand to the President in the present emergency, fotmd him in
bed “under a paroxysm of rheumatism which had kept him for
ten days in constant torment.” Then he emphatically added.

No circumstance will evermore tempt me to engage in any thing
public. ... It is a great pleasure to me to retain the esteem and
approbation of the President, and this forms the only ground of any
reluctance at being unable to comply with every wish of his. Pray
convey these sentiments, and a thousand more to him, which my
situation does not permit me to go into.^

This was the very time when the Whisky Boys of Eastern
Pennsylvania revolted against the excise laws of Hamilton
which fell on them harder than on any other part of the rural
population, for they could not market their grain for lack of
transportation facilities and their only means of living was
distilling it into whisky. Individual acts of resistance to the
agents of the excise culminated in August, 1794, in an anued
convention denouncing the law and defying the government
on Braddock Field, in spite of the moderating influence of the
young Jeffersonian, Albert Gallatin. Not only was the militia

‘ May 14, 1794. Memorial lidilion, IX, 287.

= September 7, 1794. /Wii., IX, 291.

306 THOMAS JEFFERSON

called but the President and Hamilton went to visit the camp
at Carlisle. The insurrection ended without bloodshed, but the
side of the insurrectionists was taken up in the large cities by the
Democratic societies in which the Irish element was largely
represented — hot-headed people, recently come from an
oppressed land, who felt an ingrained spirit of revolt against
soldiers and men in uniform, — until dressed in a uniform
themselves. The immediate effect of the Hamiltonian policy
was to amalgamate rural population and urban groups of
mechanics and small operatives in a hostile attitude towards the
aristocratic government. Hamilton thought the time had come
to crush the vanguard of the Jeffersonian troops, and Washing-
ton, who had an inveterate hatred of anything smacHng of dis-
order and mob rule, lent a favorable ear. He wrote a stinging
denunciation of the Democratic societies in his yearly message
to Congress.

This time JeSerson was aroused, although personally he had
never had anything to do with Tammany in New York nor
any of the Democratic societies in Philadelphia. He fairly
exploded in a letter to James Madison : the denunciation of the
Democratic societies was “ one of the extraordinary acts of bold-
ness of which we have seen so many from the faction of mono-
crats.” How could one condemn the Democratic societies
and let alone the Society of the Cincinnati, “ a self-created one,
carving out for itself hereditary distinctions, lowering over our
Constitution eternally.” It was an inexcusable aggression.
With regard to the transactions against the excise law, he
refused to take seriously the “meeting of Braddock field”, and
ridiculed the mobilizing of an army against men who were not
thinking seriously of separating, “simply consulting about it.”
— “But to consult on a question does not amount to a deter-
mination of that question in the affirmative, stiU less to the
acting on such determination'^ he advised. A fine legal dis-
tinction which Jefferson forgot at the time of the Burr con-

MONTICELLO — AGRICULTURE 307

spiracy ! But “the first and only cause of the whole trouble
was the infernal esxcise law.” The first error was “to admit it by
the Constitution” ; the second, to act on that admission ; the
third and last will be to “make it the instrument of dismember-
ing the Union.” In conclusion he advised Madison to stay at
his post, “to take the front of the battle” for Jefferson’s own
security, and once again he reaffirmed that he would not give up
his retirement for the empire of the universe.^

On April 23, 1795, he wrote to James Madison to refuse cate-
gorically any resumption of office high or low. That was
already his firm resolution when he had left Philadelphia and
it was even stronger then, since his health had broken down
during the last eight months ; “ My age requires that I should
place my affairs in a clear state. The question is forever closed
with me.” To propose his name would only mean a division
of votes in the party and that was to be avoided before every-
thing.^ To Giles he repeated that his days “were busy with
now and then a pious ejaculation for the French and Dutch,
returning with due despatch to my clover, potatoes, wheat,
etc.” ® In the meantime Jay had returned with the treaty
surrendering practically all the claims of the United States,
placing the country in a position of constant inferiority with
reference to England, opening the Mississippi to the British
trade and forbidding American vessels to carry molasses,
sugar, and cotton to any ports except their own. It was laid
in special session before the Senate on June 8, ratified on June
24, and sent to the President without the contents being known
to any one. It would have remained secret if Thomson Mason
of Virginia had not taken a copy of it to Bache, who published it
the next day in the Aurora. It was a most humiliating and
scarcely defensible transaction: Jay had been outgeneraled
at every step by Grenville and, in a way, betrayed by Hamilton.

> December 28, 1794. Memorial Edition, IX, 293,

® April 27, 1795. lUd , IX, 301 ’ April 27 Ibid , IX, 305.

3 o8 THOMASJEFFERSON

But although it was distinctly a Federalist victory, it offered
good campaign material for the Republicans.^

On August 30, Jefferson sent to Thomas Mann a sort of
apologia, telling him how, “while all hands were below deck,
every one at his own business and the captain in his cabin
attending to the log book a rogue of a pilot had run the ship
into an enemy’s port.” Not that he wanted to express any
opinion of his own but, “metaphor apart, there is much dis-
satisfaction with Mr. Jay and his treaty. ... For my part, I
consider myself now but as a passenger leaving the world and
its government to those who are likely to live longer in it.” ^
With H. Tazewell he was more outspoken : a glance at the
treaty had been enough to convince hhn that the United States
would be much better without any treaty than with a treaty of
that sort. “ Acquiescence under insult is not the way to escape
war,” and he could only hope that the Executive’s sense of
public honor and spirit would be awakened. To Madison he
gave the benefit of his advice. There was no leader in the camp
of the Republicans to take advantage of the situation ; rioting
in the streets could not influence favorably the judgment of
Washington, who had not yet signed, and there was always
Hamilton, who had retired to be sure, but was “a host in him-
self” ; the Federalists were in a defile, but “too much security
will give time to his talents and indefatigableness to extricate
them.” He ended with an appeal to Madison : “We have had
only middling performances to oppose to him. In truth, when
he comes forward, there is nobody but yourself who can meet
him. . . . For God’s sake take your pen, and give a funda-
mental reply to Curtius and Camillus.” ®

With real perspicacity Jefferson had put his finger on the
fundamental weakness of the Republicans. They were only the

1 See S, F. Bemis. "Jay’s Treaty.” New York, 1923.

^August 30, 1795. Memorial Edition, IX, 307.

’ September 21, 1793, IX, 309.

MONTICELLO — AGRICULTURE 309

yeomanry ; they counted a number of very honest and distin-
guished men ; some of them were even brilliant in debates and
could flatter themselves that they were victorious, as long as the
Federalist chieftain did not appear in person on the battlefield.
When he did, however, they had no outstanding man with the
same capacity for work, the same ability to marshal facts, to
present cogent arguments and to use biting sarcasm. Jefferson
alone, with his great felicity of expression and his mastery of
style, could have opposed successfully the Federalist leader, but,
as he wrote to Rutledge: “after five and twenty years’ con-
tinual employment (in the service of our country), I trust it
will be thought I have fulfilled my tour, like a punctual soldier
and may claim my discharge.” ^

That he would have been a redoubtable opponent, had he
chosen to be so, appears m a letter he sent at the time to William
B. Giles, The treaty once ratified by the Senate and signed
by the President, it was thought that the House, on which
fell the duty of making the necessary appropriations for
the enforcement of the different articles, might possibly
pass in their turn on the merits of the document. Randolph
had been requested by the President to give his opinion on the
subject and did it in one of those written consultations which
Jefferson had so often been asked to prepare himself, when
in the official family of Washington. To Giles, who was to
attack the treaty in the House wdth Gallatin and Madison,
Jefferson sent an elaborate and cruel dissection of Randolph’s
opinion ;

The fact is that he has generally given his principles to one party,
and his practice to the other, the oyster to one, the shell to the
other. ... On the precedent now to be set will depend the future
construction of our Constitution, and whether the powers of legis-
lation shall be transferred from the President, Senate, and House of

1 November 30, 1795. Memorial Edition, IX, 313.

310 THOMAS JEFFERSON

Representatives to the President and Senate, and Piamingo or any
other Indian, Algerine, or other chief d

Clearly he was getting back into his stride and when thor-
oughly aroused, as he had been once or twice in his career, he
could also hit back or rather pierce with rapid thrust of the
rapier. And yet he was not really thinking of reentering the
arena, for at the same time he was offering to George Wythe to
superintend an edition of the laws of Virginia, of which he had
made as complete a collection as he could, “either the manu-
scripts crumbling into dust or printed.” ^ Yet he had an eye
upon the budding geniuses of the Democratic party. Soon he
realized the value of Albert Gallatin, who had undertaken a
thorough analysis and demolition of Hamilton’s administration :

Hamilton’s object from the beginning was to throw them into
forms which would be utterly undecypherable. ... If Mr.
Gallatin would undertake to reduce this chaos to order, present us
with a clear view of our finances, and put them in a form as simple
as they will admit, he will merit an immortal honor. The accounts
of the United States ought to be, and may be made as simple as those
of a common farmer, and capable of being understood by common
farmers.’

With such sentences, simple and easily remembered, such
felicity of expression and of thought, one can make a lasting
impression on the people, without addressmg directly the
Indians of Tammany Hall or participating in whisky riots.
One can also throw suspicion of intentional dishonesty on
one’s adversaries, coin mottoes which, repeated in a political
campaign, fix themselves easily in the unsophisticated minds of
the common people. But it does not ensue necessarily that
Jefferson was an arch plotter, pulling the strings and laying plots
to explode years later. He was quite sincere in his dislike of

‘ Match. 21, 1796. Memorial Edition, IX, 329.

“January 16, 1796. ZiWd., IX, 319.

“ To James Madison, March 6, 1796. Ibid., IX, 323.

MONTICELLO — AGRICULTURE 311

Hamilton’s budgets, for the simple reason that he did not under-
stand them himself. The master financier and expert was
beyond Jefferson’s comprehension ; in many respects he was
even far ahead of his own time, while Jefferson, in matters of
finance at least, remained all his life an eighteenth-century man.
But the young Swiss-American who had made his mark in the
whisky insurrection must have felt himself elated at Jefferson’s
approval. By such appropriate compliments and encourage-
ments, great tacticians create and foster party and personal
loyalty, and Jefferson was a past master in this difficult art.

As he had encouraged Gallatin, he encouraged Giles, kept in
touch with him and through him sent a word of congratulation
to a new Republican recruit, Doctor Leib : “I Imow not when
I have received greater satisfaction than on reading the speech
of Doctor Leib in the Pennsylvania Assembly. He calls himself
a new member. I congratulate honest republicanism on such
an acquisition, and promise myself much from a career which
begins on such elevated ground.” ^ He reminded him that
Democratic societies were proscribed m England and that it
would be interesting to Icnow the terms of the bid proposed by
Pitt against them. Gallatin again called for his commendation
for a speech printed in Bache’s Aurora, the sole organ of the
Republicans smee Freneau had discontinued his Gazette : “ It is
worthy of being printed at the end of the Federalist, as the only
rational commentary on the part of the law to which it
relates.” ^ Then Jefferson raved over the indignities heaped
upon the coimtry by the treaty, over the point made by the
Federalists that the House had nothing to say in the matter,
and in his fury he even went so far as to treat Washington more
severely than he had ever done before. “ Curse on his virtues,”
he exclaimed ; ‘ ' they have undone his country. ’ ’ This political
advice was naturally buried under rural news; “Mercury at

' March 19, 1796. Memorial Edition, IX, 326.

2 To James Madison, Match 27, 1796. Ibid., IX, 330.

312 THOMAS JEFFERSON

twenty degrees in the morning. Corn fallen at Richmond to
twenty shillings.” But this bucolic note stopped short and the
political thermometer was consulted again and indicated that
“Nicholas was sure of his election, R. Joue and Jo. Monroe, in
competition for the other vote of the county.”

Three weeks later Jefferson dug in his files to send Madison
more ammunition, showing clearly that, at least in one case,
Washington himself had recognized formerly the authority of
the legislature, that is to say both branches of the House, when
it came to ratifying the treaty with the new Emperor of Mo-
rocco.^ Then he wrote to his former neighbor, Philip Mazzei, a
letter which was to cause him more difficulties than any of the
previous acts of his career. He thought that he could and
should give news of the country to this curious character, who
had come to Virginia as a vine-grower to engage in agricultural
experiments but who was also the former agent of the Duke of
Tuscany and of Stanislas of Poland, a Grimm “au petit pied”,
a literary correspondent and a philosopher. In all fairness to
Jefferson a preliminary remark is here necessary. He was apt
in conversation to take his cue from his interlocutors rather
than to force on them any topic, and he was apt also to speak
in the same tone and same diapason. In his letters he instinc-
tively yielded to the same tendency, changing his tone and style
according to his correspondent. Writing to an Italian he
adopted a flowery, metaphoric, and emphatic manner not often
found in his letters, and in his desire to flatter the Tuscan ear
of his friend, he overshot the mark and overemphasized what
he would have stated much more moderately to an American :

Against us are the Executive, the Judiciary, two out of three
branches of the Legislature, all the officers of the government, all
who want to be officers, all timed men who prefer the calm of despot-
ism to the boisterous sea of liberty. ... It would give you a fever
were I to name to you the apostates who have gone over to these

* April 9, 1790. Memorial Edition, IX, 334.

313

MONTICELLO — AGRICULTURE

heresies, men who were Samsons in the held and Solomons in the
council, but who have had their heads shorn by the harlot
England. . . .

But these men had not realized the great strength of the
party then coming into being: “We have only to awake and
snap the Lilliputian cords with which they have been entangling
us during the first sleep which succeeded our labors.” Then
came the customary mention of his health, even more mournful
than usual : “I begin to feel the effects of age. My health has
suddenly broken down, with symptoms which give me to
believe that I shall not have much to encounter of the tedium
vitae.” ^ Little did he believe when he indulged in this rhetori-
cal outburst that Mazzei would give the letter to an Italian
paper, that it would be translated from the Italian into French,
from French into English and finally appear in America.

For Jefferson was eager to remain on good personal terms
with Washington, even if he strongly disapproved_of his policies,
and this appeared when a few months later he denied having
communicated to Bache’s Aurora the questionnaire on the Little
Sarah, and he seized the occasion to assure Washington once
again of his affectionate sentiments. But he was already
thmking of protecting himself, for in the same letter he asked
the President to send him copies of the opinions presented by
Hamilton and Randolph as “they had his opinion and he never
had been able to obtain copy of theirs.” And significantly
he added, “Though I do not know that it will ever be of the
least importance to me, yet one loves to possess arms, though
they hope never to have occasion for them.” ^

The summer was apparently entirely occupied in agricul-
tural and scientific pursuits. La Rochefoucauld-Liancourt, the
former president of the National Assembly, at whose house
Jefferson used to visit when in Paris to meet the ‘^republi-

1 April 24, 1796. Memorial Edition, IX, 335.

^ June rp, 1796. Ibid,, IX, 339.

314 THOMAS JEFFERSON

cains”, was then traveling through the United States and
stopped at Monticello for a week. The Duke has left us a
most valuable description of Jefferson’s establishment and the
country around it. He praised the house “which will deserve
when completed to be ranked with the most pleasant mansions
in France and in Europe.” He admired the view from the hill :
for “Mr. Jefferson’s house commands one of the most extensive
prospects you can meet with.” But his eye was that of a refined
and overcivilized Frenchman of the eighteenth century accus-
tomed to limited horizons, limited forests, to a certain balance
between the woods, the rivers and the lands inclosed with
hedges, to a nature stamped, modified, remolded by centuries
of human labor. The contrast between the “moderate French
landscapes” and the unlimited vistas in which plowed fields
occupied a negligible space, impressed him ahnost pamfully.

It was a magnificent view, but too vast; and rather than
look at the scene as it presented itself, he preferred to call on
fancy “to picture to us those plains and mountains such as
population and culture will render them in a greater or smaller
number of years.” He looked with some suspicion at the
numerous agricultural experiments of Jefferson, who seemed
“to have derived his knowledge from books.” He was not
alone in this opinion. In any farming country, innovations
are looked upon askance and we are not surprised to learn that
“his system is entirely confined to himself ; it is censured by
some of his neighbours, who are also employed in improving
their culture with ability and skill, but he adheres to it, and
thinks it founded on just observation,” Finally came the pic-
ture of the master himself and life at Monticello, worth pre-
serving and reproducing.

In private life, Mr. Jefferson displays a mild, easy and obliging
temper, though he is somewhat cold and reserved. His conversation
is the most agreeable kind, and he possesses a stock of information
not inferior to that of any other man. In Europe he would hold a

IIONTICELLO AS IT APPEARS TO-D\Y

MONTICELLO — AGRICULTURE 315

distinguished rank among men of letters, and as such he has already
appeared there ; at present he is employed with activity and perse-
verance in the management of his farms and buildings ; and he
orders, directs and pursues in the minutest detail every branch of
business relative to them. I found him in the midst of the harvest,
from which the scorching heat of the sun does not prevent his attend-
ance. His negroes arc clothed, and treated as well as white servants
could be. As he cannot expect any assistance from the two small
neighboring towns, every article is made on his farm ; his negroes are
cabinet-makers, carpenters, masons, bricklayers, smiths, etc. The
children he employs in a nail factory, which yields already a con-
siderable profit. The young and old negresses spin for the clothing
of the rest. He animates them by rewards and distinctions ; in
fine, his superior mind directs the management of his domestic con-
cerns with the same abilities, activity, and regularity which he
evinced in the conduct of public affairs, and which he is calculated
to display in every situation of life. In the superintendence of the
household he is assisted by his two daughters, Mrs. Randolph and
Miss Maria, who are handsome, modest, and amiable women. They
have been educated in France.

It is pleasant to have the direct testimony of a foreigner and
a philosopher on the way Jefferson treated his slaves. But how
can we believe that a man who could supervise all the details of
the agricultural and industrial life around MonticeUo and en-
dure the harvest sun was absolutely broken down in health ? If
he had ever been, Jefferson certainly was picking up. It seems
probable that he did not discuss politics with the noble traveler.
Perhaps he heard another recital of the excesses of the French
Revolution, — a painful subject and one that did not serve any
purpose ; far better was it to exchange views on crop rotation,
sheep raising, dimg and manure, clover and potatoes and to
demonstrate the new plow he had invented with a mold board
of least resistance, which was to bring him some years later
the ^‘grande medaiUe” of the Agricultural Society of Paris.^

1 To Jonathau Williams, July 3, 1796. Memorial Edition, IX, 347.

3 i6 THOMAS JEFFERSON

The first mention of the coming presidential election occurs
in a letter to Monroe of July lo, 1796. The treaty had finally
passed, but the party of the monocrats was shaken to its very
foundation, “Mr. Jay and his advocates are treaty-foundered.”
The result was not doubtful. Even if a monocrat were elected,
he would be overborne by the republican sense of his constitu-
ents. “If a republican, he will, of course, give fair play to that
sense and lead things into the channel of harmony between the
governors and the governed. In the meantime, patience!”
He mentions that in order to operate a division and to split
the Virginia vote, they had unsuccessfully endeavored to run
Patrick Henry for vice president and would probably fall back
on Pinckney, “ in which they regard his southern position rather
than his principles.” But curiously enough the presidential
nominees or preferences are not even mentioned. Could
Monroe really believe that Hamlet was going to be played with-
out Hamlet, and that the election of a vice president was the
only tiling that mattered ? This omission was far more signifi-
cant than any expressed preference. If Jefferson mentioned no
candidates, it was simply because he already Icnew at that date
that his faithful lieutenants in Congress were thinkhig of him
as the only logical candidate, the only one who had not partici-
pated actively in the last three years’ fierce debates in Congress,
the only one who had not officially and openly taken a definite
position, and consequently would be entirely free to make
whatever concessions were necessary to reestablish harmony in
the divided camps of the voters. The result of the election
was certainly in doubt; but at a time when foreign affairs
were the dominant question, when in spite of the Jay treaty
England was multiplying almost unbearable insults, when the
nation was deeply humiliated, and even the Federalists resented
the terms of the treaty, there were only two men of the first
rank in America who had maintained the prestige of the United
States before foreign nations and had shown themselves to be

MONTICELLO — AGRIC ULTURE 317

able negotiators : the man who with Franklin had pul his sig-
nature to the Treaty of Peace, and the man who had concluded
treaties of commerce with the nations of Europe ; Adams and
Jefferson.

A strange campaign it was, in which the champion of the
Republicans seemed to remain completely silent. The middle
of December came, and Jefferson had not yet manifested any
desire to run, nor had he made any declaration concerning his
program. He had to come out however when, on the night
of the sixteenth, he received a letter from Madison informing
him that there was no longer any doubt about the logical choice
of the Republicans and that Madison would decline to be candi-
date. Jefferson took up his pen at once to define his position
to his friend. He hoped that Adams would be elected ; and
in that case he would be satisfied with the second place
although he would prefer the tliird, that is, his rejection, since
he would be free to remain at home. It was desirable, however,
in case of a tie, that Madison be instructed to request on his
behalf that Mr. Adams should be preferred. Some of the
reasons he gave were highly honorable, the best being that Mr.
Adams was his senior and had always “ranked” him in public
life, either in France or in America. Other reasons he did not
indicate : one was evidently that the situation had never worn
so gloomy an aspect since the year 1783 and that Jefferson did
not believe he could steer clear of the present difficulties.^

Ten days later he wrote more at length to Rutledge. No news
had come from Philadelphia, but he protested that he had no
political ambition : “ Before my God, I shall from the bottom of
my heart, rejoice at escaping.” Scrutinizing himself, he found
that the unmerited abuse he had been subjected to still rankled ;
he was convinced that “no man will ever bring out of that
office the reputation which carries him into it.” The honey-
moon would be as short in that case as in any other, and its

' December 17, 1796. Memorial Edition, IX, 351,

3i8 THOMAS JEFFERSON

moments of ecstasy would be ransomed by years of torment and
hatred. Frankly he had no heart for the job. Nor was this a
declaration of philosophical principles, but another instance of
his political foresight, and a simple admission of facts, for not
only had Franklin been bitterly attacked after his death, but
Washington himself was not immune from public abuse, and
such would be the fate of Adams.

Jefferson was cjuite sincere when he declared: “I have no
ambition to govern men ; no passion which would lead me to
delight to ride in a storm.” In advance, he repeated the suave
man magno of the old poet and hoped that he would not be
elected, his only wish was that the newspapers would permit
him “ to plant his corn, beans, peas, etc. in hills or drills as he
pleased, while our eastern friend will be struggling with the
storm which is gathering over us, perhaps be shipwrecked in it !
This is certainly not a moment to covet the helm.” If this was
not a sincere and true statement, then language certainly has
been given to man to conceal his thought. If Jefferson was
thirsty for power at that time he was more Machiavellian than
MachiaveUi himself. But in spite of the inferences of iU-mten-
tioned historians, I do not see that there is the slightest ground
to doubt Jefferson’s sincerity . . . except that he accepted
finally the vice presidency, as he clearly hinted he would if it
were offered to him.^ He ended with a picturesque and ener-
getic phrase and said in French what he could not say in
English, He had not forgotten the words he had heard in the
streets of Paris and perhaps in some salons after dinner, but
certainly not in the mouth of Madame de Tessd or Madame
de Corny : “ Au diable les bougrcsl"

The next day he started writing to John Adams : he had not
received any direct news of the election, but from his own
calculations he had every reason to believe that barring a “trick
worthy of your arch-friend of New York, Hamilton”, Adams

1 To Rutledge, December 37, 1796. Memorial Edition, IX, 353,

MONTICELLO — AGRICULTURE 319

would be elected. In tbat eventuality he wished to send his
best wishes, and had only one hope to express, that Adams
would be able to avoid the war. A friendly, sincere letter which
Adams never saw. As Jefferson was going to send it, came
Madison’s letter of the seventeenth, announcing the complete
results of the election.

It caused a certain amount of surprise to Jefferson ; the vote
had come much nearer an equality than he had expected, and,
as he wrote a week later to Volney, '‘the difference between
sixty-eight and seventy-one votes is little sensible.” The
presidency would have been decidedly distasteful to him ; the
vice presidency was somethmg different and he could not in his
own mind decide whether he “ had rather have it or not have it.”
Then he went into a curious piece of philosophizing which
marks him as very different from eighteenth-century philoso-
phers and eighteenth-century optimists. More of a realist in
politics than he is given credit for, he showed himself once more
a disciple of Hobbes in his vision of society :

I do not recollect in all the animal kingdom a single species but
man which is eternally and systematically engaged in the destruction
of its own species. What is called civilization seems to have no
other effect than to teach him to pursue the principle of helium
omnium in omnia on a larger scale, and in place of the little contests
of tribe against tribe, to engage aU quarters of the earth in the same
work of destruction. When we add to this that as to the other
species of animals, the lions and tigers are mere lambs compared
with men alone, that nature has been able to find a sufficient
barrier against the too great multiplication of other animals and
of man himself, an equilibrating power against the fecundity of
generation. My situation points my views chiefly to his wars in
the physical world : yours perhaps exhibit him as equally warring
in the moral one. We both, I believe, join in wishing to see him
softened.^

^ To Madison, January i, 1797. Memorial Edition, IX, 357.

320

THOMAS JEFFERSON

For the first time Jefferson was going to occupy a position
of prestige in the American Government and to become Presi-
dent of the Senate, second only to the President, the “heir
apparent”, as Adams had termed himself during the preced-
ing administration. Far from rejoicing over the honor, he
expressed his reluctance to attend elaborate ceremonies for
the inauguration, and he did his best to wriggle out of them.
He asked whether it would not be possible for him to be
notified of his election by mail instead of being waited upon
by a special delegation from the Senate ; then he looked up
the Constitution and decided that he could just as well take
oath of office in Charlottesville as in Philadelphia, and that it
was hardly worth the trouble, since Congress was to adjourn
at once, to undertake the long journey over muddy roads for
such an ordeal. Finally he set out for Philadelphia. He had
reentered public life for twelve more years and little sus-
pected that it would be so long before he could come back to
dear MonticeUo and resume his agricultural experiments.

CHAPTER IV

“THE DICTATES OF REASON” AND PURE
AMERICANISM

When Jefferson arrived m Philadelphia to attend the inaug-
uration of the new President, he had not seen Adams for four
years and only insignificant communications had passed be-
tween them, since Madison had thought it proper to suppress
the letter written by Jefferson at the end of December, not
knowing “whether the rather difficult temper of Mr. Adams
would not construe certain passages as a personal criticism.” ^
With Adams, however, the first impulse was often the best.
At the time he felt in a very conciliating mood ; he even in-
dulged m the hope that it would be possible to announce a sort
of political armistice and to bring about a union of the different
parties.

The two old friends had a cordial interview. Both of them,
years later, wrote accounts of this historical meeting ; though
differing in a few details they agreed as to Adams’ intention of
burying the hatchet and beginning anew. He offered to send
Jefferson to Paris as special envoy, insisting that he alone had
the confidence of the French and would be able to bring about
an arrangement. Jefferson being both unwilling and unavail-
able, Madison’s name was mentioned, but nothing was decided
as both knew that Madison had refused such an offer when ten-
dered by Washington.

In his inaugural address Adams discreetly sounded a note of
reconciliation. He praised the 'Constitution, declared that it
was “better adapted to the genius, character, situation and rela-

1 James Madison to Jefferson, January ij, 1797. “Works”, VI, 303

322

THOMAS JEFFERSON

tions of this nation and country than any which had ever been
proposed or suggested” ; he added, much to the disgust of the
Federalists, that he did not think of “promoting any alteration
in it but such as the people themselves in the course of their
experience should sec and feel to be necessary or expedient” ;
finally, he seemed to desert the Federalist camp when he
averred that, since he had seen the Constitution for the first
time, “it was not then, nor had been since, any objection to
it in his mind that the Executive and Senate were not more
permanent.”

Not without good reason had Hamilton failed to show any
enthusiasm over the candidacy of Adams, and the Hamiltonians
had some ground for declaring that the speech “was temporiz-
ing” and “was a lure for the favor of his opponents at the
expense of his sincerity.” Two days later Jefferson and Adams
attended a dinner offered by Washington to the new adminis-
tration. When they left the house they started walking home
together and the name of Madison being mentioned, Adams
declared that objections to the nomination had been raised.
The President and the Vice President had come to Fifth Street,
where their roads separated; they took leave of each other
and the subject was never mentioned again. It was really the
parting of the ways after a timid effort toward reconciliation.
Adams in the meantime had called together his Cabinet and the
Cabinet, as he himself admitted afterwards, had proposed to
resign en hloc if he insisted on Madison’s nomination.

For the “incongruous portrait gallery” that constituted the
Cabinet inherited by Adams from Washington, we may refer
to the vivid picture of Mr. Bowers : “ Ali Baba among his Forty
Thieves is no more deserving of sympathy than John Adams
shut up within the seclusion of his Cabinet room with his
official family of secret enemies” may seem to some a rather
severe characterization. The least that can be said, however,
is that it was a Cabinet hand-picked by Hamilton and that

THE DICTATES OF REASON 323

neither Pickering, Wolcott nor McHenry were the best minds
Adams could have chosen in his party. But there again the
term party is inaccurate; if Adams had, in some respect.
Federalist tendencies, he was not a party man or a party leader.
The irritable, impulsive, patriotic, peevish old New Englander
was too individualistic to belong to any party ; he was not the
man either to rally the hesitating, to uphold the vacillating, or
to encourage and educate the blind. Curiously enough, he has
found very few defenders. Severely treated by the friends of
Jefferson, he has not been spared by the admirers of Hamilton.
He stands alone, one of the most complicated and contradictory
figures in American history — a pure patriot, whose patriotic
work is almost forgotten, a catholic spirit who loved to play
with ideas and paradoxes, a contrary mind, but in my opinion
more widely read than any of his American contemporaries, not
excepting Jefferson. A man who spent his life by the side of
the severe and haughty “New England Juno”, but who had
more ideas in his brain than any sultan of the Arabian Nights
had favorites in his harem.

He had taken the hehn at the climax of external difficulties.
Complicated and delicate as were the problems of domestic
administration, they were overshadowed by the difiiculties with
France. The misunderstandings, the incidents repeated on both
sides, had accumulated with such an effect that, at the begin-
ning of 1797, war with France seemed to be almost unavoidable.
Though Jefferson had very little to do with it, it is not out of
place to recall the main facts.

Genet had unfortunately his American parallel in Gouverneur
Morris. As witty and devoid of ordinary morals and honesty
as Talleyrand himself, elegant, refined, and corrupt, Gouverneur
Morris had been, since his arrival in Paris, the toast of French
aristocrats, tiis activities in favor of the king and his partisans
were not unknown to the French, and when Genet was sent to
America he had been requested to present discreetly the situa-

324 THOMAS JEFFERSON

tion to the American Government. Genet had made no
official representation, but he discussed Morris’ attitude in a
private conversation with Jefferson, and Washington, apprised
of the facts, had seen the necessity of acting.

Monroe, on the contrary, had attempted to resume the
Jeffersonian tradition. A disciple of the former minister, a
true Liberal, and friendly to the French Revolution, he had been
enthusiastically received at once, in spite of the many difficult
problems he had. to present to the government. But the Jay
treaty had proved a bitter pill to swallow, and the Directory
had made strong representations to the American minister:
America was accused of having violated the treaties of Alliance
and Commerce, and when Monroe was recalled, the Directory
not only refused to receive the successor that had been
appointed but even ordered him to leave the French territory
at once.

Without entermg into the merits of the question, we may say
that Jefferson was still decidedly for peace, although somewhat
doubtful of Adams’ intentions. Shortly after the inauguration
he analyzed his position as follows :

I sincerely deplore the situation of our affairs with Prance. War
with them, and consequent alliance with Great Britain, will com-
pletely compass the object of the Executive Council, from the
commencement of the war between France and England, taken
up by some of them from that moment, by others more latterly. I
still, however, hope it will be avoided. I do not believe Mr. Adams
wishes war -tinth France ; nor do I believe he will truckle to England
as servilely as has been done. If he assumes this front at once,
and shows that he means to attend to self-respect and national
dignity with both the nations, perhaps the depredations of both on
our commerce may be amicably arrested. I think we should begin
first with those who first began with us, and, by an example on them,
acquire a right to re-demand the respect from which the other party
has departed.

THE DICTATES OF REASON 325

An ideal policy, but hardly enforceable with a man of Adams’
temperament and with the Cabinet he had inherited. Immedi-
ately after taking oath of office, Jefferson had repaired to
Monticello and was getting acquainted with his duties as pre-
siding officer of the Senate ; in January he asked his old master
George Wythe to send him all possible information on parlia-
mentary procedure “whether in books or scraps of paper”, ^
and he was working on his “Parliamentary Manual.” Early
in April news of the refusal of the Directory to receive Pinckney
arrived in Philadelphia, Adams proclaimed at once a day of fast-
ing and prayer and called an extraordinary session of Congress
for May 15. It was to be feared that a declaration of war would
be the order of the day, for “the President did not need the
assistance of Congress to continue in peace.” ^

As soon as he reached PhiladelpMa, Jefferson studied the
situation and summed it up in a letter to Elbridge Gerry even
before the opening of Congress. He had already come to the
conclusion that a rapprochement between Adams and himself
would prove impossible. There was really no way to convince
Adams that Jefferson had not coveted the first place and did
not nourish some rancor at his alleged failure to obtain it.
Furthermore, it was quite certain that the Hamiltonians
would do everything in their power to poison the mind of the
President. This was most unpleasant but of little import to
politics. J eff erson considered himself part of the legislative and
not of the executive, and he had not even the right to be heard
in consultation. It was his duty as well as his inclination to sit
back, without trying to meddle in any way with the conduct of
government.

On the other hand, he had not given up the right of expressing
an opinion as a private citizen on matters of importance to the
nation, and after stating that he had no concern in the present

'January 22, 1797. Memorial Edition, IX, 370.
• April g, 1797. Ihid , IX, 380.

326 THOMAS JEFFERSON

situation, he launched out on a long expose of the political
situation as he saw it on the eve of the special session. With
reference to foreign relations his wish and hope was that “we
should take our stand on a ground perfectly neutral and inde-
pendent towards all nations.” This was particularly true with
respect to the English and the French, but more easily said than
done, since the English, not satisfied with equal treatment,
wanted special privileges. Then Jefferson drew up a very
impressive picture of the hold on the United States maintained
by Great Britain through her commerce. Without domestic
industries the United States had to go to England ; she was
the workshop of America. Goods were largely transported in
English bottoms ; British merchants, some of them fictitiously
naturalized, wore in every American port and in all the cities
and towns of the interior, occup3dng strategic positions. The
British also were dominating American banks and American
finance and, through finance, could exert a powerful influence on
American political life. Finally, they were accused of attempt-
ing to break the Union by advocating in their subsidized press
a scission between the North and the South. If difficulties
came to such a point that the only way to avoid a secession was
to go to war with Europe, Jefferson, much as he abhorred war,
was willing to become embroiled with Europe. He stiU hoped,
however, that it would be possible to find some means to keep
out of European quarrels and in the meantime gradually to free
America from all foreign influence, “political, commercial, or
in whatever form it may be attempted.”

One might say that this was no original point of view to
develop. It was to a certain extent the policy advocated by
Washington in his Farewell Address. Curiously enough, it was
not absolutely remote from Hamilton’s theory, for these two
men who, temperamentally, could never come together, held
about the same view of the situation. That England had the
larger share of American commerce and that English manufac-

THE DICTATES OF REASON 327

tures had a sort of monopoly of the American market had been
repeatedly pointed out by Hamilton. And on this Jefferson
agreed completely. If one objected to that condition, the
obvious remedy according to the Hamiltonian doctrine was,
not to take measures to exclude English goods from the market,
but to encourage American manufactures so as to enable them
to compete with imported products. In this Jefferson differed
from Hamilton, but while complaining of the situation, he did
not propose any remedy, except perhaps to protect American
inventors and thus stimulate them to establish new manufac-
turing plants. One must admit that at this point he let his
“philosophy” interfere with realities.

As a matter of fact, he was thorouglily opposed to the
development of manufacturing plants, to the creation of large
industrial cities housing thousands of salaried workers. As we
have said, his vision of America was a sort of Arcadia where
every man would live on his own farm, off the products of his
own land. In some respects it may seem perfectly absurd, and
yet it was very natural and to a certain extent quite logical. It
was purely and simply the extension of the Monticello type
of organization to the whole country. La Rochefoucauld-
Liancourt had been struck by the fact that Monticello was
practically a self-supporting economic unit. Jefferson was
raising his own horses and just enough sheep to provide the wool
spun by the women slaves to clothe the workers and sometimes
the masters. On the plantation lived smiths, carpenters, cabinet
makers, brick makers, and layers ; some grain was sold, some
nails were manufactured and sold to the neighbors. Selling
comparatively little, buying practically nothing, Jefferson s
estate came as close to being a sort of Robinson Crusoe island as
was possible in a modern country. Thus the Virginia planter
had come to develop a philosophy of society not unlike the
ideal society described by Rousseau in the “Nouvelle Heloise^
and more feudal than he himself realized, since, after all, if

328 THOMAS JEFFERSON

serfdom had been abolished, it rested essentially on slavery.
He was unequivocally against great agglomerations, although
he had not visited any of the large industrial cities of England
except London ; but at least he knew London and Paris, he had
lived in Philadelphia and New York, and he felt that it was not
good for men to herd too closely together. Work in factories
was both unhealthy and immoral, for in congested centers of
population there developed a spirit of discontent aggravated by
the fact that industrial workers, who generally did not own
a particle of land, were footloose, unattached, and free to move
from one city to another at any time ; they constituted a rest-
less and dangerous element. It mattered little that, for the
present, they gave their support to the Republicans and had
joined the Democratic clubs; Jefierson knew too well that
they would be easily influenced in their views by a good orator,
by passions of the moment, and could not be relied upon in an
emergency.

It would be easy to point out the close resemblance of certain
features of this ideal of Jefferson with the theories of the Physio-
crats. Such a parallelism, however, can be easily exaggerated
and to a great extent is very misleading. Whether all riches
came from the soil, or were the product of labor in any form,
or both, Jefferson did not know and did not care. He was no
more a disciple of Quesnay than of Adam Smith, simply because
he was not an economist but a sociologist. Hamilton, who was
an economist of the first rank, was primarily interested in the
development of production and in the circulation of wealth, and
paid little attention to the social modification that an industrial-
ization of the country would probably bring about. Jefferson,
on the contrary, was solely interested in protecting and preserv-
ing a certain pattern of civilization which was essentially an
agricultural pattern — the only safe foundation for the political
and private virtues of vital importance in a democracy. Manu-
factures meant surplus production, which meant, in turn, the

329

THE DICTATES OF REASON

necessity of exporting. If America became a great industrial
nation, she would have, sooner or later, to export her surplus
production and in turn to import many products from Europe.
But if the country maintained extensive trade connections
with Europe she would be necessarily caught in the maze
of international politics. Her commercial interests would
clash with the interests of Europe, and this would ultimately
result in wars or at least in a constant threat of war. It would
also mean the building of a strong navy to protect American
commerce, perhaps the establishment of a permanent army;
at any rate, the immediate consequence would be an enormous
increase in taxes, the necessity of resorting to internal taxation,
the burden of which would fall on the backs of the farmers.
Numerous tax collectors would have to be appointed ; Federal
employees and officials ready to act at the beck and call of the
Government would swarm all over the country. State rights
and individual rights would be restricted and invaded, and
liberty would exist only in name. On the other hand, foreign
commerce was not to be entirely suppressed. Commerce was a
natural and desirable thing with one’s neighbors. Geographi-
cally the West Indies had closer connections with America than
with Europe, and it was in that direction that the United States
could develop their trade . This was a natural law and a n atur al
right, and any obstacle put to the natural flow of trade between
the islands and the American continent was unjust and to be
fought persistently.

Such seems to have been at that time the political and social
dream of Jefferson. Like most dreams of the sort it was per-
fectly logical, even if impossible to realize. But, as a matter
of fact, it was far more admissible than the ideal he was to
propose four years later in his inaugural address, foUowing the
lead of Washington: “peace, commerce with all nations, en-
tangling alliances with none.” He was far more clear-sighted
when he came to the conclusion that America could not com-

330

THOMAS JEFFERSON

bine political aloofness and commercial and economic relation-
ship. This formula was a desperate and none too successful
attempt to coalesce two contradictory principles and ideals,
and for the last hundred and thirty years America has been
striving to achieve this impossible program. Such a position
has always seemed most absurd and unintelligible to Europeans,
with the result that America has often been accused of hypo-
critical conduct in her foreign affairs, and more indulgent his-
torians have repeatedly confessed their puzzlement and inability
to understand her. The consequences of this incestuous union
of Jefiersonian political aloofness and Hamiltonian industrial
and commercial development are still apparent to-day. They
were conspicuous in the position taken by President Wilson
during his first administration ; they reappear again and again
in all American declarations referring to the League of Nations,
mandates, and reparations. One of the first results was neces-
sarily to embroil America in all European wars and to raise
again and again the question of neutrality.

It is doubtful however whether, even in 1797, Jefferson would
have consented to carry to an extreme the realization of his
bucolic dreams. He knew full well that America had commer-
cial aspirations that could not be suppressed ; all one could do
was not to encourage them as Hamilton wanted to do and, in
the meantime, to reduce political connections to a minimum.

At the end of the short session of Congress in which measures
relative to Europe had been debated, Jefferson wrote to Rut-
ledge : “as to everything except commerce, we ought to divorce
ourselves from them all.'’ But this system would require
“time, temper, wisdom, and occasional sacrifice of interests;
and how far all of these will be ours, our children may see, but
we shall not.” ^ Such has been the hope and the endeavor of
America ever since that time ; with what success it is for others
to judge.

1 June 24, 1797. Memorial Edition, IX, 408.

THE DICTATES OF REASON

331

Adams’ speech had been a warlike one. That the Govern-
ment of the United States had been insulted by the French
Directory was no “matter of doubt.” Pinckney, sent as suc-
cessor to Monroe, had not been received by the Government,
and Monroe had been informed that the Directory “would no
longer recognize nor receive a minister plenipotentiary from the
United States, until after a reparation of the grievances
demanded of the American Government, and which the French
Republic had a right to expect.” Pinckney himself had been
notified that his presence in Paris was illegal and that he could
not stay in the cormtry. No wonder that Adams declared
that : “ Such attempts ought to be repelled with a decision
which shall convince France and the world that we are not a
degraded people, humiliated under a colonial spirit of fear and
sense of inferiority, fitted to be the miserable instruments of
foreign influence, and regardless of national honor, character
and interest.”

On May 23 the Senate sent an address to the President,
indorsing his views by a vote of seventeen to eleven. The
fight was to take place in the House and in the newspapers.
“Foreign influence is the present and just object of public hue
and cry”, wrote Jefferson to Thomas Pinckney.^ As always
happens when the cry of wolf is raised, “the most guilty and
foremost and loudest in the cry”, those who were denouncing
French influence, were to a large extent English propagandists
and not of the best type. But news from F ranee was infrequent
and slight and, at the beginning of June, Jefferson waited
anxiously for the daily arrival of Paine and Monroe from whom
he expected a true account of the situation. Then came the
news of Bonaparte’s latest victories and the announcement that
the preliminaries of peace were signed between France and
Austria. This was the only thing which could and did cool
the fury of the British faction. “The victories of the Rhine

' May 29, 1797 Memoiial Edition, IX, 389

332 THOMAS JEFFERSON

and Italy, peace with Austria, bankruptcy of England, mutiny
in her fleet, and the King’s writing letters recommending peace ”
— all that constituted a string of events nothing less than
miraculousd

At this Juncture Jefferson made a momentous political move.
He wrote a long letter to Colonel Aaron Burr to take him into
his confidence. The Vice President was beginning to gather up
the loose threads : “ Some general view of our situation and
prospects, since you left us, may not be unacceptable. At any
rate, it will give me an opportunity of recalling myself to your
memory, and of evidencing my esteem for you.” What could
this mean in ordinary language if not that he counted on him
to counterbalance Hamilton’s influence in New York and
present the views of the chief to the leaders of the party. First
of aU he called his attention to the fact that the Republican
party was losing ground in the House as well as in the Senate,
and that the majority was in the hands of “five or six individ-
uals of no fixed system at aU, governed by the panic or the
prowess of the moment, who flap as the breeze blows against
the Republican or the aristocratic bodies.”

For the present, the danger of going to war was less disquiet-
ing. Bonaparte’s victories had brought many to their senses
and some were complaining that Congress had been called to-
gether to do nothing. “The truth is, there is nothing to do, the
idea of war being scouted by the events of Europe ; but this only
proves that war was the object for which we were called.” It
had been a close call, and France might have declared war
against the United States if the Ancients had not pronounced
against it. “Thus we see two nations who love one another
affectionately, brought by the ill temper of their executive
administrations, to the very brink of a necessity to imbue their
hands in the blood of each other.”

But leaving aside all sentimental considerations, Jefferson

' June 15, 1797. To James Madison, Memorial Edition, IX, 397.

THE DICTATES OF REASON

333

undertook to demonstrate that such a war would have, as a
result, the immediate occupation of Louisiana by France, and
with Louisiana again a Gallo-American colony, the danger
would indeed be great. Such were “some of the truths that
ought to penetrate into the Eastern States”, and Burr was no
doubt intrusted with the mission to preach the true doctrine of
republicanism in his district.^

Four days later Jefferson announced with infinite joy to
Elbridge Gerry that he had been appointed to go as envoy
extraordinary, jointly with General Pinckney and Mr. Marshall,
to the French Republic. Once more he insisted upon the neces-
sity of coming to some sort of an arrangement with Europe.
War against England or France could only result in civil war
in America and probably secession. The fate of the United
States was at stake.^

Congress was to adjourn on the twenty-eighth of June and
Jefferson was already looking forward to the rural quiet of
Monticello, where he could “exchange the roar and tumult of
bulls and bears for the prattle of his grandchildren and senile
rest. ’ ’ His quiet however was disturbed by an unexpected inci-
dent. Early in August he sent an urgent call to Madison to
come to Monticello with Monroe in order to consult with them
on an urgent matter. The letter written to Mazzei the preced-
ing year had come back, translated from the French, and was
used as a political weapon against Jefferson and the Republi-
cans. Pubhc repudiation of the letter was impossible, since he
had really written it, although the translation had garbled the
meaning of some important sentences. To remain silent under
fire and accept as true the accusations hurled against him was
equally difficult. Has friends alone could help him out of the
difficulty. He finally decided to ignore the whole matter as he
had already been advised to do by his Philadelphia friends, but

^ June 17, 1797. Memorial Edition, IX, 400,

® June 21, 1797. Tbid , IX, 403

334 THOMAS JEFFERSON

the letter preyed on his mind and this was not an incident to be
easily forgotten. It was during the summer and fall of that
year that certain principles were definitely crystallized in his
mind.

Deploring the fact that both factions had been incensed by
political considerations and political hatred rather than by a
true judgment of the situation and what he had called in a
letter to Rutledge “the dictates of reason and pure American-
ism”, he then reached for himself certain conclusions which
were to direct his political conduct during the rest of his career.
He was thoroughly sickened by the insults passing in the press.
Men of his own party he could not severely condemn for this,
nor could he take from their hands the weapons used to defeat
the enemy, but he was also loath to approve of their tactics. In
Democratic societies, established in large cities, he placed very
little confidence ; they were fighting on his side, at least for the
present, and were vociferous enough ; but to a large extent they
were made up of office hunters. They did not and could not
constitute a trustworthy bulwark for Republican institutions.
Fortunately events had proved that there existed in the country
a large body of people sincerely attached to republican princi-
ples ; these had been slumbering and their leaders had almost
steered the ship into a foreign port, but they could be enlight-
ened and made to manifest their true sentiments; for all
reforms “must be brought about by the people using their
elective rights with prudence and self-possession, and not suffer-
ing themselves to be duped by treacherous emissaries.” “ It is
the sober sense of our citizens that we are safely and steadily
conducting from monarchy to repubheanism, and it is by the
same agency alone that we can be kept from falling back.” ’■
As to foreign questions, the fact that their intrusion into Ameri-
can hfe had divided the nation against itself proved conclu-
sively that the only safe course to follow was to sever the last

^ To Colonel A. Campbell, September i, 1797. Memorial Edition, IX, 419.

33S

THE DICTATES OF REASON

bonds that connected America with Europe and “to place our
foreign connections under a new and different arrangement.” ^
The time had come for America to proclaim her independence
in all foreign matters, for “ we owe gratitude to France, justice
to England, subservience to none.”

It was in coming these fine political maxims that Jefferson
was at his best. As had happened so often during his life,
he refused to be carried away by popular passions raging in
Philadelphia, New York, and Boston. From the “moun-
tain top” of Monticello he was able to judge dispassionately
the sordid struggles of party politics. He was no party
boss, not even a party leader; if he had any ambition at
that time, it was to become a national leader and the exponent
of what he himself had called in his letter to Rutledge “pure
Americanism.”

Congress had been called for November 13, but tire Vice
President felt no inclination to hurry back to Philadelphia and
reenter the scene of strife. He did not leave until Decem-
ber 4 and found, as he had expected, that Congress was marking
time, waiting for news from Paris. Madison he kept informed
minutely of all the changes that had taken place during the
summer, of the progress of republicanism in Vermont and New
York, and of aU the small talk of politics, interesting only as
showing how eagerly Jefferson kept his finger on the pulse of
the country. He had an ulterior motive in sending to Madison
papers and pamphlets recently published in Philadelphia ; it
was that “ the paragraphs in some of these abominable papers
may draw from you now and then a squib.” Matters seemed
to be on the mend ; the latest official intelligence from Paris
was that the envoys “would find every disposition on the part
of the Government to accommodate with us.” ^ The session
dragged on. Jefferson’s melancholy statement that the Senate

* June 24, 1797. Memorial Edition, EX, 409.

’ January 3, 1798. Ihid , IX, 431.

336 THOMAS JEFFERSON

was divided “twenty-two and ten and will probably forever
be”, was not helped by Adams’ declaration that :

No republic can ever be of any duration, without a Senate, and a
Senate deeply and strongly rooted, strong enough to bear up against
all popular storms and passions. The only fault in the Constitution
of our Senate is, that their term of ofiSce is not durable enough.
Hitherto they have done well, but probably they will be forced to
give way in time.^

The only important proposition before Congress was “the
bill of foreign intercourse and the proposition to arm our
foreign vessels” ; but both parties seemed to be afraid to press
the matter. Everything was in suspense “as the ensuing
month will probably be the most eventful ever yet seen in
modern Europe.” If Bonaparte’s projected invasion of Eng-
land succeeded the tables would turn ; in the meantime the
official ball given on Washington’s birthday offered to Phila-
delphia society a pretext for engaging in hot controversies.
Business was bad and bankruptcies multiplying. Congress was
thinking of appropriating some money for national defense so
as to furnish convoys to vessels going to Europe and to provide
for the protection of smaller vessels of the coast trade. Adams
had decided to reorganize his Cabinet. Wolcott would remain
in office, but it seemed that McHenry was to go and Pickering
was very doubtful whether he would stay.®

Meanwhile dispatches from the American envoys had
arrived ; they were being deciphered and the President hesi-
tated upon the advisability of communicating them in full to
Congress. Then, on the nineteenth, came Adams’ message
declaring that “it was inciraibent on him to declare that he
perceived no ground of expectation that the objects of their
mission could be accomplished on terms compatible with the
safety, honor, or the essential interest of the Nation.”

^ February 22, 1798. Memorial Edition, IX, 444.

“ March is, 179S. IbH., X, 6.

THE DICTATES OF REASON

337

On the twenty-first Jefferson wrote to Madison that “ a great
change has taken place in the appearance of our political atmos-
phere” ; the “insane message” had had great effect but there
was still a possibility that, if aU members were present, the war
measures would be defeated by one voice in the House. What
was to be done in that case? The only possible solution was to
make a bid for time and wait for the results of Bonaparte’s
expedition against Great Britain. Jefferson’s plan therefore
was to propose an adjournment of Congress “in order to go
home and consult their constituents on the great crisis of Ameri-
can affairs now existing.” “To gain time is everything with
us.” In this letter Jefferson made one of his few material
errors, so strange on the part of a man in his position, and hardly
to be explained unless we suppose that the wish was father to the
thought. “We rehed,” he said, “with great security on that
provision which requires two-thirds of the Legislature to declare
war. But this is completely eluded by a majority’s taking such
measures as will be sure to produce war.” Certainly there was
no such article m the Constitution, rmless Jefferson in his
excitement interpreted the ratification of treaties by two-thirds
of the Senate to imply also that a declaration of war should
have such a maj ority A week later he was convinced that ‘ ‘ the
question of war and peace depends now on a toss of cross and
pile. If we could gain but one season we should be saved.” ^
It was to these Fabian tactics that the Republicans were to bend
all their efforts in order to avoid a formal declaration of war.

In the meantime the dispatches of the envoys were made
public and the famous X.Y.Z. case came to light. Debate was
hot in Congress on the Sprigg resolution declaring that “imder
existing conditions it is not expedient for the United States to
resort to war against the French republic.” ® Adams then
decided to communicate the letters from Paris.

* March 21, 179S. Memorial Edition, X, 9.

^ To Madison, March 29, 1798. Zftici., X, 17. ® March 27, 1798.

338 THOMAS JEFFERSON

No more terrible blow could have been inflicted upon the
friends of peace. Jefferson heard the news on April 3, but as it
was still undecided whether they could be made public, he re-
frained from discussing them with Madison until the sixth. His
first impressions were “very disagreeable and very confused.”
Yet he tried, as was his wont, to see both sides of the question.
With the story of the abortive negotiations was interwoven

. . . some base propositions on the part of Talleyrand, through
one of his agents, to sell his interest and influence with the Directory
towards soothing difficulties with them, in consideration of a large
sum (fifty thousand pounds sterling) ; the arguments to which his
agent resorted to induce compliance with this demand were un-
worthy of a great nation (could they be imputed to them), and
calculated to excite disgust and indignation in the Republicans par-
ticularly, whom they so far mistake, as to presume an attachment
to France and hatred to the Federal party and not to the love of their
country, to be their first passion.

In the papers, as communicated, Adams had substituted for
the names given by the envoys — Hottinger, Bellamy, and
Hauteval — the initials X.Y.Z., hence the name given at once
to the incident.

Whether the French bankers really represented Talleyrand is
absolutely immaterial ; the result on American public opinion
alone is to be considered here. According to Jefferson, the
public’s first reaction was one of astonishment;^ furious
indignation followed very quickly. Sprigg’s resolution was
naturally discarded as not appropriate ; war seemed the order
of the day. The last resort left to the remaining Republicans
was to avoid open hostilities with the French Republic and,
not being able to prevent a vote of credits for armaments, to
insist that they should be granted specially for internal defense
and preparation.® A more mature consideration of the letters

‘ To Madison, April it, 1798. Memorial Edition, X, 27.

* April 12, 1798. IW., X. 28.

THE DICTATES OF REASON

339

convinced Jefferson that the door to negotiation was not
absolutely closed.^ But popular indignation was too strong;
riotous scenes took place in the streets of Philadelphia, addresses
from all parts of the country came to Adams, urging him to
stand for national honor and the Federalist press fanned the
flames. The few faithful Republicans grew discouraged and
one by one drifted out of Philadelphia. “Giles, Clop ton,
Cabell, and Nicholas have gone,” wrote Jefferson on April 26,
“and Clay goes to-morrow. Parker has completely gone over
to the war party. In this state of things they wiU carry what
they please. One of the war party, in a fit of unguarded pas-
sion, declared sometime ago they would pass a Citizen BiU, an
Alien Bill, and a Sedition Bill.” ^ Madison, although urged to
take up his pen “for heaven’s sake and not desert the public
cause altogether”, remained silent in Virginia. Jefferson felt
that the first and second measures were directed against his
close friend Volney,® who had been somewhat imprudent. That
the republican press would be muzzled for “the war hawks talk
of septembrizing, deportation and the examples for quelling
sedition set by the French executives. All the firmness of
the human mind is now in a state of requisition.” ^

It is remarkable, and not the smallest achievement of Jeffer-
son, that he kept a cool head in the midst of this turmoil.
Insulted every day in the press and in public meetings, lam-
pooned and caricatured, he had to remain silent because of his
official position and could not protest to the government. No
stranger political situation could be imagined than this, — a
man recognized as the head of a party opposed to the govern-
ment, yet next to the President m rank, without power to defend
himself and to enter into polemics, ostracized, and, as he
admitted himself, “insulated in every society”, forced to listen

‘ April 12, 179S. Memorial Edition, X, 29.

* To Madison, April 26, 1798. Ibid., X, 31.

' See Cliinard, “Volney et i’Ani6rique.” Paris, Baltimore, 1923.

* To Madison, April 26, 1798. Memorial Edition, X, 33.

340

THOMAS JEFFERSON

to the reading of the most detestable thmgs such as the Alien
Bill, and still not indulging in bitterness. A comparison of his
letters with those written by Adams and Hamilton at the same
time would constitute the most extraordinary tribute to his
self-mastery. He persisted in seeing some faint hope and
refused to give up the ship.

First there was a possibility that when the merchants would
see that actual war meant War Tax, Land Tax, and Stamp Tax,
these measures would constitute sedatives to cool their ardor.
The present session had already cost two hundred thousand
dollars and that was only a beginning. Furthermore, there was
also a possibility that, if an actual declaration of war could be
prevented during the summer, the coming election would reen-
force the republican party. Volney had decided to go back to
France with a few other aliens who had chartered a boat,
without waiting for the enactment of the Alien Bill. Many of
them were much irritated, but Volney at least was “thoroughly
impressed with the importance of preventing war, whether
considered with reference to the interests of the two countries,
of the cause of Republicanism, or of man on a broad scale.” ^

Isolated though he was in Philadelphia, from his room in the
Philosophical Society of which he was president, Jefferson
persisted in hoping against hope. One thing however was to
be avoided at all cost. If the situation became such that the
Northern States, Connecticut and Massachusetts particularly,
clearly dominated the situation, it was far better to submit
temporarily and endure even detestable measures than to break
the Union. The beginning of the disaggregation could not be
stopped ; a realignment of States conducing to new secessions
would finally be the result. Men must quarrel, and “seeing,
therefore, that an association of men who will not quarrel with
one another is a thing which never yet existed, from the
greatest confederacy of nations down to a town meeting or a

1 To Madison, May 31, 1798. Memorial Edition, X, 4.3.

THE DICTATES OF REASON

341

vestry ; seeing that we must have somebody to quarrel with, I
had rather keep our New England associates for that purpose,
than to see our bickerings transferred to others.” ^

This was a most important declaration and shows to what
length Jefferson was willing to go in order to avoid the only
irremediable catastrophe. Whatever may have been his weak-
nesses and shortcomings, his inconsistencies and contradic-
tions, the man who, in the hectic atmosphere of Philadelphia,
was able to put aside his own interests, the interests of his
party, his social and political ideals to think nationally,
was indeed a great American. We may even venture to
say that he was at the time the only great American in the
country.

When Marshall came back from France — much to his sur-
prise, as a war hero and as an avenger of national honor — the
Republicans began to take a less pessimistic view of the situa-
tion. After all, the situation was not so desperate as they had
been led to believe ; Gerry had remained in Paris, and negotia-
tions could be resumed. The show of honesty made by the
envoys in Paris was most gratif5dng to national honor and gave
the public a feeling of triumph over the corrupt practices of
European diplomacy. But with the return of Marshall a new
campaign broke out against Jefferson. Doctor Logan on his
own initiative had gone to Europe in the interest of peace, but
had gone mysteriously and without telling any one of his inten-
tions. It was soon assumed that he had been sent on an unau-
thorized and unofficial but highly objectionable mission by the
Jacobins "to solicit an army from France, instruct them as to
their landing, etc.”, and Jefferson was again accused of being
the arch plotter. Nothing could be more ridiculous, for the
poor doctor was simply one of those idealistic pacifists who
sometimes do more harm than good, but whose intentions are
not open to suspicion.

1 To John Taylor, June 1 , 1798. Memorial Edition, X, 45

342

THOMAS JEFFERSON

But popular passions once aroused cannot be silenced in a day
and the efforts of the friends of peace were weak and inefficient.
On April 14 a bill was passed on second reading by the Senate,
declaring the treaties with France void and nonexistent.
Adams made it known that he would refuse Gerry’s request that
other envoys be sent. If Congress remained in session in a city
where war hysteria had reached a paroxysm, extreme measures
were unavoidable. The only remedy was to adjourn as soon
as possible, for “to separate Congress now, will be withdrawing
the fire from under a boiling pot.” ^ Congress did not separate,
however, without authorizing the President to increase the navy,
to expend two hundred fifty thousand dollars for fortifications,
to purchase eight hundred thousand dollars’ worth of arms and
ammunition, to raise an army of ten thousand troops and to
equip vessels to seize and bring to port any armed vessels
wliich had attacked American vessels or might be found “hover-
ing on the coast of the United States for the purpose of
committing depredations on the vessels belongmg to the
citizens thereof,” On July 6 were passed the famous Alien
Bills, and on the fourteenth, as a sort of defiance to the prin-
ciples of the French Revolution, Congress adopted the “ Sedi-
tion Law”, giving power to the government “to prosecute
persons or to prevent the circulating or saying of any utterance
against the Government of the United States, or either House
of the Congress of the United States, or the President of
the United States.”

^To Madison, June 21, 1798. Memorial Edition, X, 49-53.

CHAPTER V

POLITICAL LEADER AND STRATEGIST

When Jefferson went home after the adjournment of Congress
he remained completely silent for two months. But the news-
paper war went on in Philadelphia with more virulence than
ever ; attacks against the arch plotter and the defender of the
French Jacobins were multiplied, prosecutions were begun in
Massachusetts under the Sedition Act and for a time Jefferson
himself seems to have feared for his own safety. To Samuel
Smith, who had sent him a clipping in which he was vehemently
accused, he answered that he had “contemplated every event
which the Maratists of the day can perpetrate, and I am pre-
pared to meet every one in such a way, as shall not be derog-
atory to the public liberty or my own personal honor.” He
naturally denied that he had in any way plotted with Bache,
the editor of the Atirora, or Doctor Leib ; then he went on to
define once more his position. He had acted on the same prin-
ciples from the year 1775 to that day, and he was convinced
that these principles were those of the great body of the Ameri-
can people. He was for peace certainly, not only with France
but also with England. He was aware that both of them “ have
given and are daily giving, sufficient cause of war; that in
defiance of the laws of nations, they are every day trampling
on the rights of the neutral powers, whenever they can thereby
do the least injury, either to the other.” But he still main-
tained that the best policy was and would have been “to bear
from France for one more summer what we have been bearing
from both of them these four years.” With England the
United States had chosen peace ; with France they had chosen

344 THOMASJEFFERSON

war ; to what extent the Government was supported by the
majority of the people was a thing to be seen in the coming
elections. He ended with a note of Christian forgiveness for
Fenno and Porcupine, who “covered him with their implacable
hatred.” “The only return I will ever make them, will be
to do them all the good I can, in spite of their teeth.” ^

This was almost too godly to be true ; but if we remember
that his letters were intercepted and read by Adams’ police, as
he repeatedly complamed, and that letters sent to him were
opened on their way to Monticello, we may wonder whether he
did not write these lines for the eye of the censor, and with his
tongue in his cheek. That he really believed at the time in the
existence of a monarchical conspiracy appears from a letter
to Stephens Thompson Mason.®

The Alien and Sedition bills were just a beginning. If the
people did not revolt against them, the next step would be to
persuade Congress that the President should continue in ofhee
for life, reserving to another time the transfer of the succession
to his heirs and the establishment of the Senate for life.

This was a very accurate prophecy of the course that events
were to follow, not in America, but in France, and this shows at
least that Jefferson had an exact understanding of the gradual
steps through which a republican government might become
an empire. But France had Bonaparte, while neither Adams
nor Washington ever had the inclination or the power to bring
about such a change in America. Yet when one thinks of the
military ambitions of Hamilton, of his real opposition and
scorn for republican government, it would perhaps be unfair to
dismiss these apprehensions as absolutely groundless. What-
ever the case may have been, Jefferson thought the time had
come to erect a strong barrier against the encroachments of the
Federal Government. Towards the end of the same month, the

' August 22, 1798. Memorial Edition, X, 61.

^ October ii, 1798. lUd., X, 62.

POLITICAL LEAD ER

345

two Nicholas brothers, George and Wilson C., discussed with
Jefferson at Monticello a plan to put to work the Republicans,
who, finding themselves useless in Congress, had retired from
the field. A plan was finally adopted to arouse the State
legislatures ; during these meetings were drawn up the famous
“Resolutions” that George Nicholas was to present to the
legislature of Kentucky, and which Madison was to bring before
the Virginia Assembly. ^

The exact authorship of the “Resolutions” remained a
matter of doubt until Jefferson more than twenty years later
acknowledged his participation in a letter to the son of George
Nicholas.^ It was well for Jefferson’s peace of mind that he
remained behind the scenes on this occasion and let Madison
take the responsibility of the recommendation, which he did
not allow to pass without modifying the original text to a con-
siderable degree. The Kentucky resolutions have been the
subject of many discussions, and Madison himself used a great
deal of ink and time to explain the true import of the measures
he had sponsored before the Virginia Assembly. They will
become much more intelligible when studied in the light of the
theory we have already discussed and by which the social
compact is considered as a pactum foederis and not a pactum
suhjectionis? It was simply the reaffirmation that in forming a
society neither men nor States abdicate entirely their sover-
eignty but reserve a specified part of their natural rights set
forth in a Bill of Rights — an essential foundation on which
to build a constitution. Such is clearly the meaning of the
first resolution :

I. Resolved. That the several States composing the United
States of America are not united on the principle of unlimited
submission to their general Government ; but that, by a compact
under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States,

1 To Madison, November 17, 1798, Memorial Edition, X, 62.

2 December ii, 1821. Ibid , XV, 351. ’ See pp. 80-82.

346 THOMAS JEFFERSON

and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general Government
for special purposes — delegated to that Government certain definite
powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right
to their own self-government, and that whensoever the general
Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthorita-
tive, void, and of no force , that to this compact each State acceded
as a State, and is an integral party, its co-States forming, as to itself,
the other party, that the Government created by this compact was
not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers
delegated to itself , since that would have made its discretion, and
not the Constitution, the measure of its powers , but, that, as in all
other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each
party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as
of the mode and measure of redress

Not only was Jefferson perfectly consistent in repeating
almost word for word in this Resolution the doctrine of natural
rights and State rights reached early in his career, but the last
lines foretold the theory he was to defend against Marshall
during his presidency. By denying that the parties to the
Federal compact had a common judge, he refused in advance
to consider the Supreme Court as the guardian, interpreter, and
defender of the Constitution. This principle once asserted,
Jefferson endeavored to prove that the Sedition BUI, the Alien
Bill and other measures adopted by Congress at the instigation
of the Federalists constituted an infringement of State rights,
since they did not deal with matters specifically reserved to
Congress and since it was provided that “the powers not dele-
gated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited
by it to the States are reserved to the States respectively or to
the people.” This was at the same time an attempt to prove
the unconstitutionality of the recent legislation and an endeavor
to define more exactly the powers of the Federal Government.
The Eightli Resolution, the longest, proposed the establishment
of a committee of correspondence to communicate the resolu-
tions to the different legislatures and enunciated the doctrine

POLITICAL LEADER 347

of nullification, namely that the State had the right to consider
as nonexistent such laws as might be passed in defiance of the
Constitution. Naturally the Law of Sedition and the Alien
Bill came under that category.

Strong as the language of the Resolutions may have been, it
was not Jefferson’s intention to promote a rebellion of certain
States against the Federal Government and to provoke a
secession. They contamed a strong affirmation that the
subscribers to the Resolutions were sincerely anxious for the
preservation of the Union. As a matter of fact, in Jefferson’s
intention they were a piece of political strategy and he had no
desire to push the matter too far. A letter he wrote to Madison
on the subject is particularly significant on that score: “I
think we should distinctly affirm all the important principles
they contain, so as to hold to that ground in future, and leave
the matter in such a train as that we may not be committed
absolutely to push the matter to extremities, and yet may be
free to push as far as events wtU render prudent.” ^

In other words, it was what the French call a gesture, the act
of a lawyer reservmg certain points in a trial before a tribunal
and the right to present conclusions. It was not the act of a
revolutionist and for the time being at least, although adopted
in a modified form both by Kentucky and Virginia, it remained
a gesture and a simple protest against Federalist usurpations.

The end of the fall came, and Jefferson relapsed once more
into his cautious silence. One letter only, written from Monti-
cello to John Taylor, is found in the files for that period.® This
time Jefferson was more optimistic ; the ardor of the Federalists
for war seemed to have cooled down and the people began to
realize that national pride was a very expensive article, that
wars had to be paid for : “the Doctor is now on his way to cure
it, in the guise of the tax gatherer.”

^ November 17 Memorial Edition, X, 63.
* November 26, 1798 Ibtd , X, 63.

34B THOMAS JEFFERSON

At tlie end of the month, the Vice President set out for
Philadelphia to attend the opening of the third session of the
Fifth Congress. Adams’ address was anxiously awaited.
Much to the surprise and disgust of the war party, if it could
not be called conciliatory, it was far less provocative than the
address of the twenty-first of June preceding. He protested
against the decree of the Directory constituting “ an unequivo-
cal act of war” and maintained that “to invigorate measures
of defence” was the true policy of the United States. But
while he thus reiterated some of his previous statements, the
tone was far less truculent. President Adams, while frowning
threateningly, held behind his back the olive branch and was
ready to extend it. The conclusion was one of these milk-and-
water statements, that curious balancing of two positions so
often found in American State papers relating to foreign affairs :

But in demonstrating by our conduct that we do not fear war in
the necessary protection of our rights and honor, we shall give no
room to infer that we abandon the desire of peace. ... An efficient
preparation for war can alone insure peace. It is peace that we
have uniformly and perseveringly cultivated, and harmony between
us and France may be restored at her option.

Then came the really important part: “The United States
Govermnent could not think of sending another minister . . .
unless given positive assurances that he would be received. It
must therefore be left with France (if she is indeed desirous of
accommodation) to take the requisite steps.”

Apparently an innocuous statement, but yet it was a new
note ; as it was known that Adams had received some com-
munications from Gerry and was to make these communications
known, it was supposed that a real change and a change for the
better was about to take place in the relations between the two
countries. Therefore Jefferson could mention in the speech “a
moderation unlike the President”, and he also knew that Vans

POLITICAL LEADER

349

Murray, the American minister at the Hague, had informed
his Government “that the French Government is sincere in
their overtures for reconciliation and have agreed, if these fail,
to admit the mediation offered by the British Government.” ^
In the meantime the fight in Congress was merrily going on,
with that peculiar circumstance that both leaders remained
behind the scenes. To the Kentucky Resolutions, followed by
much milder representations from other State legislatures,
Hamilton opposed his mstructions sent to Dayton, and since
published in his “Works.” If they had fallen into Jefferson’s
hands he would have found in them ample grounds for his fears.
The Federalist leader was of the opinion that his party was
losing ground, and the late attempt of Virginia and Kentucky
to unite the State legislatures in a direct resistance to certain
laws of the Union, could be considered in no other light than as
an attempt to change the Government. Under the circum-
stances, and considering that “the enemies of the Government
were resolved, if it shah be practicable, to make its existence a
question of force”, Hamilton had devised a certain plan to be
executed by the Federalist troops in Congress. The measures
came under four heads : establishments which will extend the
influence and promote the popularity of the Government ; pro-
vision for augmenting the means and consolidatmg the strength
of the Government ; arrangements for confirming and enlarging
the legal powers of the Government ; laws for restraining and
punishing incendiary and seditious practices. The detail of
the recommendations showed a perfectly well-concerted plan
to concentrate all powers in the hands of the Federal Govern-
ment.

One of the most remarkable proposals was perhaps the proj-
ect of subdividing the larger States into several small States
containing no less than a hundred thousand persons each, as
these new units would be “better adapted to the purposes of

> To James Madison, January 3, 1799. Memorial Edition, X, 67.

3 SO THOMAS JEFFERSON

local regulations and to the preservation of the Republican
spirit.” It is not without interest here to note that the Feder-
alist leader proposed the very measures which had been adopted
in France when the old provinces were divided into deparkments.
In the case of the Federalists, as in the case of the Constituents,
the purpose was the same : a concentration of all powers into
the hand of a central authority and the suppression of local
government. Other recommendations were an extension of
the judiciary with a Federal judge at the head of each district ;
the appointment of conservators or justices of peace, who were
to supervise the energetic execution of the laws and to promote
“salutary patronage”; a stronger army; improvement of
roads ; powers given to the Government to call out the militia
to suppress unlawful combinations and insurrections; power
given to Congress to build canals through the territory of two or
more States, that “aU seditious writings levelled against any
officers whatever of the U. S. shall be cognizable in the courts
of the United States.”

If the administrative reorganization advocated by Hamilton
had been effected, it would have made the United States not
far different from the France of Napoleon and, such being the
plans of the Federalists, it cannot be said that Jefferson’s fear
was entirely exaggerated.

One of the first victories of the Federalists was to pass the
famous Logan Law (January 30) forbidding any citizen of the
United States to commence or carry on any verbal or written
correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government, or
any officer thereof in relation to any disputes or controversies
with the United States. Doctor Logan’s intentions had been
of the best. He had seen members of the French Directory in
Paris and had brought with him “non-equivocal proofs of the
pacific dispositions of the French Government towards the
United States ” and particularly the Statement of Merlin that
“/fl Uberte des Etats-Unis nom a copite Prop de sang pour quklle

POLITICAL LEADER 351

ne no%is soit pas chere."'^- None of these activities could be
called treacherous, and in normal times would not have been
noticed. But behind Logan, Jefferson was aimed at, and he
was perfectly aware, as he wrote to Madison, that “ the real
views m the importance they have given to Logan’s enterprise
are mistaken by nobody.” ^ Yet he thought he had to justify
himself to his friends, and sent a long letter on the subject to
Gerry. Far more important than his defense was a declaration
of the principles he did not fear to avow. “They are unques-
tionably,” he said, “the principles of the great body of our
fellow-citizens.” It was really the program of the Democratic
Party and the most luminous exposition of the Jeffersonian
doctrine ever made.

I do then, with sincere zeal, wish an inviolable preservation of
our present federal Constitution, according to the true sense in
which it was adopted by the States . . . and I am opposed to the
monarchising its features by the forms of its administration, with a
view to conciliate a first transition to a President and Senate for life,
and from that to an hereditary tenure of these offices ... I am for
preserving to the States the powers not yielded by them to the
Union, and to the legislature of the Union its constitutional share
in the division of powers; and I am not for transferring all the
powers of the States to the General Government, and all those of
that Government to the executive branch. I am for a government
rigorously frugal and simple, appljdng all the possible savings of the
public revenue to the discharge of the national debt ; and not for a
multiplication of officers and salaries merely to make partisans . . .
I am for relying, for internal defence, on our militia solely, till actual
invasion . . . and not for a standing army in time of peace, which
may overawe the public sentiment; nor for a navy, which by its
own expenses and the eternal wars in which it will implicate us, will
grind us with public burthens, and sink us under them. I am for
free commerce with aU nations; political connections with none;

1 Madison to Jefferson, June j6, ijog. Jefferson Papers, Library of Congress.

* January i6, rygp. Memorial Edition, X, 69.

352 THOMAS JEFFERSON

and little or no diplomatic establishment ... I am for freedom of
religion, and against all manoeuvres to bring about a legal ascend-
ency of one sect over another : for freedom of the press, and against
all violations of the Constitution to silence by force and not by
reason the complaints of criticism, just or unjust, of our citizens
against the conduct of their agents. And I am for encouraging the
progress of science in all its branches ; and not for raising a hue and
cry against the sacred name of philosophy. . .

Jefferson ended with a paragraph in which he solemnly pro-
claimed the integrity of his American nationalism, although he
admitted that he was a well wisher to the success of the French
Revolution and still hoped that it would succeed ; but he added
at once; “The first object of my heart is my own country. In
that is embarked my family, my fortune, my own existence.
I have not one farthing of interest, nor preference of any one
nation to another, but in proportion as they are more or less
friendly to us.”

The man who drew up that program in the midst of an
unprecedented political strife and the riotous scenes of the
streets of Philadelphia was a political leader of the first rank.
The letter to Gerry is more than a letter from one individual to
another ; it transcends the circumstances of the moment. It
is the result of mature reflection ; the conclusions reached by
Jefferson after almost thirty years of political life. It is really
the first program of his party and the first complete definition
of Government and of Americanism; for it was distinctly
American. I fail to perceive in it the influence of any foreign
political thinker except in so far as such principles as freedom of
the press, separation of the Church and the State may have been
ideas common to a great majority of political thinkers of the
eighteenth century. Even if Jefferson's request to Gerry to
keep the communication absolutely secret was obeyed, there
is little doubt that we have here the gist of the communication

^To Elbridge Gerry, January 26, 1799. Memorial Edition, X, 77-78.

POLITICAL LEADER 3S3

made orally by Jefferson to his friends and to the leaders of the
Republicans in Congress.

For the moment the letter contained a strong appeal to Gerry
to place every evidence at his disposal before the public, since
the Government refused to do it, and to publish in full the
report on his mission. He alone could save the situation by
coming forward independently. But even if Gerry acceded to
this wish, some one else would have to present a brief synopsis
of the evidence and draw up a judicial arraignment of the
administration. At this juncture Jefferson thought of his old
master Pendleton, at whose feet he had sat hi Williamsburg,
and with whom he had worked in the revision of the statutes of
Virginia. He alone could give the “coup do grace'’ to the ruin-
ous principles and doctrines ; he alone could recapitulate all the
vexations and disgusting details of the Stamp Act and the
Direct Tax. A small handbill would be printed and they could
“disperse ten or twelve thousand copies under letter covers,
through all the United States, by the members of Congress
when they return home.” ^ To make Pendleton’s cooperation
more certain, Jefferson even drew up the plan of the indictment
and inclosed aU the necessary doemnents.

February was for Jefferson a period of hectic activity. Dur-
ing all the first part of the month he multiplied his entreaties
to Pendleton to gird up his loins aiid enter the fight. If he still
refused to write for the press he was not averse to communicat-
ing to the editors papers written by his friends, and he begged
these for expressions of opinion to be sent to the press.

The engine is the press. Every man must lay his purse and his
pen under contribution. As to the former it is possible I may be
obliged to assume something for you. As to the latter, let me pray
and beseech you to set apart a certain portion of every post day to
write what may be proper for the public. Send it to me while here,

^January ag. 1799, Memorial Edition, X, 87 and Jefferson Papers, Library of Con-
gress, February 14, 1799.

354 THOMAS JEFFERSON

and when I go away I will let you know to whom you may send, so
that your name shall be sacredly secret.'

The propaganda was beginning to bear its fruits. John
Ogden was writing from Litchfield that “many publications
in the Aurora have reached Connecticut, within four weeks,
which have opened the eyes of the dispassionate” and he was
asking for more pamphlets.* But a week later Ogden was
arrested and to Jefferson he sent a letter “From Lichtfield Goal
(sic) at the suit of Oliver Wolcott Esq”, to affirm that “prison
has no horror to the oppressed, inspired and persecuted.” To
Aaron Burr in New York Jefferson wrote very affectionately
and very familiarly to acquaint him with the state of public
affairs.* To Monroe he was sending pamphlets, asking him
to distribute them where they would do most good, adding as
usual “Do not let my name be connected in the business.”
He never tired of repeating that the proper argument to strike
the voters was the enormous increase in the budget of the
United States : a loan authorized for five millions at eight per
cent., another of two millions to follow and that was just a
begiiming. All these measures were accepted by Congress in
the teeth of Gerry’s communications with Talleyrand, showing
the French Government willing to continue the negotiations.

Then on February i8 came “ the event of events.” Wliile all
the war measures were going on, while the Government of the
United States was blockading the French West Indies and
French vessels were captured, while there were in several
instances cases of actual warfare, the President had had in his
hand for several weeks letters exchanged between Pichon, the
French charge at the Hague, and Vans Murray, declaring that
the French Government was ready to receive “whatever
plenipotentiary the Government of the United States should

’ To Madison, Februaiy s, 1799. Memorial Edition, X, 95.

'Jolm Ogden to Jefferson, Febtuaty 7, 1799. Jefferson Papers. Library of Congress.

' Februaiy ii, 1799. /Wd.

POLITICAL LEADER

355

send to France to end our differences and that he would be
received with the respect due to the representative of a, free,
independent, and powerful nation." Adams, almost on the eve
of the adjournment of Congress, had decided, as it seems,
against the advice and without the knowledge of his Cabinet,
not only to communicate the Vans Murray-Pichon papers, but
to recommend that Murray be appointed as plenipotentiary to
France. The Federalists in the Senate were appalled and at
first did not know what to do.^ But they were not lacking in
strategy ; not darmg to come out openly, they appointed on the
President’s recommendation, not only Murray but Oliver
Ellsworth and Patrick Henry, the last two “not to sail from
America before they should receive from the French Directory
assurances that they should be received with the respect due to
the law of nations, to their character, etc.”

This, as Jefferson noticed at once, was a last effort to postpone
the patching-up of difficulties and also a last effort to provoke
the French, since they had already given such an assurance to
Murray.® “The whole artfllery of the phalanx was played
secretly on the P. and he was obliged himself to take a step
which should parry the overture while it wears the face of
acceding to it,” he wrote to Madison.® But the war party was
defeated, the Federalists had received a fatal blow; victory
already was in sight when Congress adjourned at the beginning
of March.

Then Jefferson repaired to Monticello, while in the back
counties assessors clashed with farmers, troopers with small-
town editors, while Duane was flogged in the street after being
dragged from his office by militiamen. But he was not idle,
although for some mysterious reason several of the letters he
published during the summer have never been printed. He

'To Madison, Tebruary 19, X799. Memorial Edition, X, iii.

' To Bishop James Madison, February 27, 1799. Ibid., X, 122.

• Jefferson Papers. Library of Congress, February 26, t799.

3S6 THOMAS JEFFERSON

received many visitorsj wrote to friends, proclaimed his faith
in ultimate victoiy for “the body of the American people is
substantially Republican, but their virtuous feelings have been
played on by some fact with more fiction. They have been the
dupes of artful manoeuvres and made for a moment to be willing
instruments in forging chains for themselves.” ^ He encour-
aged Bache and Venable to publish a gazette, for unfortunately
“ the people of Virginia were not incorruptible and offices there
as elsewhere were acceptable”, so that the situation was neither
safe nor satisfactory. To William Greene he wrote a truly
splendid letter on “progress” in which he expressed his belief
“with Condorcct, that man’s mind is perfectible to a degree of
which wc cannot as yet form any conception”, and predicted
limitless discoveries in the field of science. The present con-
vulsions could only be temporary, for it was impossible, he
maintained, that “the enthusiasm characterizing America
should lift its parricidal hand against freedom and science.
This would be such a monstrous phenomenon as I cannot
place among possible things in this age and in this
country.”

At the same time he was not unmindful of keeping in com-
plete harmony the heterogeneous elements of the party just
being formed. He strove to placate Callender who, jealous of
Bache, was writing epileptic letters to complain of the whole
universe, and asking at the same time that Jefferson should
send him some money, as he was short of funds.® John Taylor,
who was planning to declare void and unconstitutional laws
adopted by Congress, and to call together a convention to
appoint a dictator, had to be told to “forbear to push on to this
ultimate effort.” ® Much preferable was the work undertaken
by Randolph in presenting a legal refutation of the Federalist

Jefferson Papers. Library of Congress. To Bishop Madison, March 12, 1799.
^Ihid. Callender to Jefferson, August 10, 1799. From Richmond.

• Ibid, Marked received December ii, undated.

POLITICAL LEADER 357

attitude towards the foundation of law, and the similar docu-
ment on which Wilson Nicholas was working.^

All this time Jefferson was haimted by the fear that his letters
would fall into the hands of his enemies. To the few communi-
cations he wrote during the later part of the smnmer, he did not
even dare to put his signature, “the omission of which has been
rendered almost habitual with me by the necessity of the post
office ; indeed the period is now approaching during which I
shall discontinue writing letters as much as possible, knowing
that every snare will be used to get hold of what may be per-
verted.” ^ He came to the point that on Monroe’s advice he
had to refuse to see Madison in order to “avoid the appearance
of a collusion between them.” ’

At the beginning of December he was back in Philadelphia
for the session of Congress and soon after was able to send
reassuring news to Monroe who had become one of his “grand
electors.” Those who persist in thinking him a dreamy idealist
must read the letters he wrote between January and May, 1800 ;
not only did he keep his hand on the pulse of the country, but he
calculated the changes of the Republicans in every State and
figured out to a emit the possible number of votes they would
receive in the coming election. He knew the situation too well
not to admit that he was the natural choice of the Republicans
even before any census was held, and very early in January
acknowledged it to Monroe ;

Perhaps it will be thought I ought in delicacy to be sUent on the
subject. But you, who know me, know that my private gratification
would be most indulged by that issue, which should leave me most
at home. If anything supersedes this propensity, it is merely the
desire to see this government brought back to its republican princi-
ples. Consider this as written to Mr. Madison as much as yourself j

* August 18, 1799. Memorial Edition, X, 125.

® Jefferson Papers. Library of Congress. To Callender, undated, unsigned.
’ To Madison, November 22, 1799. Memorial Edition, X, 133.

3S8 THOMAS JEFFERSON

and communicate it, if you tMnk it will do any good, to those
possessing our joint confidence, or any others where it may be useful
and safed

He was undoubtedly sincere in disclaiming any ambition, but
under the circumstances he was boxmd to observe a certain
reticence, being the President of the Senate, next to Adams in
the Government and yet Adams’ adversary in the next election.
But in his letters he made no pretense of false modesty and
frankly mentioned time and again what he called “our ticket.”
Yet he was not the man who could ever give all his energy to a
single task, and absorbing as were his political preoccupations
he showed during the summer of 1800 as much versatility as
ever. He took up again the transformation of William and
Mary College, this time to make a real university of the old
institution. He wrote to Priestley to send him a good plan of
reorganization and a few weeks later to Du Pont de Nemours
who composed for liim his “Plan of a National Education.” ®
With Colonel Benjamin Hawkins he discussed the desirabilit}’'
of studying the language and customs of the Indians, while
there was stUl time.^ He was thinking of compiling a volume
on the “Morals of Jesus” and discussed religion with Bishop
Madison who intended to write a book to prove that the Chris-
tian religion, “rightly understood and carried into full effect,
would establish a pure Democracy over the world. Its main
pillars are — Equality, Fraternity, Justice, Universal Benevo-
lence.” ^

At the same time he was keeping close watch on the news
coming from France and on political developments in Congress.
Rumors circulated that a new revolution had taken place in
Paris and that Bonaparte was at the head of it. This was a

* Januaiy 12, jSoo. Memorial Edition, X, 136.

’ Priestley's answer, never hitherto published, will be found in my volume on “Jeffer-
son and the Physiocrats,”

• March 14, 1800. Memorial Edition, X, no.

‘Jefferson Papers. Library of Congress, February n, igoo.

POLITICAL LEADER

359

wonderful opportunity to test out by actual experience the
disadvantage of a directory or executive committee as compared
with a single executive in a republic.^ From what he knew of
the French character, he did not believe that a monarchy could
be reestablished in France, for “If Bonaparte declares for
Royalty, either in his own person, or that of Louis XVIII, he
has but a few days to live. In a nation of so much enthusiasm,
there must be a million Brutuses who will devote themselves
to death to destroy him.” But a few days later he had come
to the conclusion that it was probably what Bonaparte had
done, and what had been done in France could probably be
done in America when our Bonaparte, surrounded by his com-
rades in arms, may step in to give us political salvation in his
way.” One thing was certain, however: Bonaparte had
clearly demonstrated that he had no brains, no creative and
constructive mind; and, with the pride of a man who was
engaged in a stupendous experiment, Jefferson pitilessly criti-
cized the Napoleonic reconstruction of France : “Whenever he
has meddled we have seen nothing but fragments of the old
Roman government stuck into materials with which they can
form no cohesion ; we see the bigotry of an Italian to the ancient
splendor of his country, but nothing which bespeaks a luminous
view of rational government.” *

To his friend Samuel Adams, who had written him at the
end of January, he repeated the same judgment in less striking
but perhaps even harsher terms :

I fear our friends on the other side of the water, laboring in the
same cause, have yet a great deal of crime and misery to wade
through. My confidence has been placed in the head not in the
heart of Bonaparte. I hoped he would calculate truly the differ-
ence between the fame of a Washington and a Cromwell. What-
ever the views may be, he has at least transferred the destinies of the

‘ To Henry Innis, January 23. Memorial Edition, X, 143.

* To T. M. Randolph, February 2, 1800, Ibid., X, 151.

36 o THOMAS JEFFERSON

republic from the civil to the military arm. Some will use this as
a lesson against the practicability of republican government. I
read in it a lesson against the danger of standing armies.^

No more patent demonstration could be desired of the fact
that in his judgments of the French Revolution, Jefferson was
at all times influenced by the possible effects that European
examples might have on the American crisis. The precedent
established by Bonaparte was a very dangerous one and might
put similar ambitions into the head of an unscrupulous schemer.
Whether he really believed or not that there was such an imme-
diate danger for America, and that Hamilton had really such
intentions, is an entirely different question. Probably he did
not himself know. He only felt that a permanent army would
constitute a permanent temptation and consequently a per-
manent danger, for he had only limited faith in the virtue of
individual man, although he continued to believe in the wisdom
of the collectivity.

Domestic matters and other more immediate preoccupations
were no less worthy of attention. He followed very closely every
measure proposed in the House on the coming elections, on the
voting procedure to be adopted, and anxiously studied the
political forecasts. The situation was decidedly on the mend.
This appears clearly in the attitude of the Federalists towards
him, not only in public but also in private. For Madison he
wrote a very elaborate review of the comparative strength of
the two parties in all the States of the Union ; he saw that the
key States were Pennsylvania, Jersey and New York, the other
States being equally divided, and he concluded that “Upon the
whole the issue was still very doubtful. ” But ofi&cially one had
to maintain a confident attitude.^

When April came, he thought that it would be desirable for
the Republicans to come out with a public declaration, stating

* February 26, 1800. Memorial Edition, X, 153.

* To Madison, March 8, 1800. Jhii., X, 157-159.

POLITICAL LEADER 361

their program and their ideals. “ As soon as it can be depended
on,” he said, “we must have a Declaration of the principles of
the Constitution, in the nature of a Declaration of Rights, in
aU points in which it has been violated.” ^

If the plan had been put to execution we would have had the
first presidential “platform” as early as 1800, and Jefferson
would thus have hastened the formation of distinct political
parties. But more commonplace measures were not to be
neglected. Discussing the situation in North Carolina, still a
very doubtful State, he advised that “the medicine for that
State must be very mild and secretly administered. But noth-
ing should be spared to give them true information.” We
would like Jefferson better if he had shown more discrimination
in the choice of the men selected to disseminate this true infor-
mation. For at that time, at least, he was stUl employing Cal-
lender in Richmond — an amusing scoundrel not much better
than Cobbet, the Peter Porcupine of the Federalists. But
Callender was a useful tool, who was doing his utmost to pub-
lish the second volume of the Prospect and to catch up with
Federahst propaganda. One could condone much in a man
then writing; “I had entertained the romantic hope of being
able to overtake the Federal Government in its career of in-
iquity. But I am now satisfied that they can act much faster
than I can write after them.” *

Fortunately he had the approval and indorsement of much
more respectable characters. Samuel Adams had already
written him ; then it was John Dickinson, the Revolutionary
hero, who wrote, when sending his thanks for a copy of the late
“Resolutions of the Legislature of Virginia” : “It is an ines-
timable contribution to the cause of Liberty . . . How incred-
ible was it once, and how astonishing is it now, that every

^To P. N. Nidiolas, April 7, iSoo. Memorial Edition, X, 163.

’ Jefferson Papers. Library of Congress. Callender to Jefferson, February 10 and
March IS, 1800.

362 THOMAS JEFFERSON

measure and every pretense of the stupid and selfish Stuarts,
should be adopted by the posterity of those who fled from this
madness and tyranny to the distant wilds of America.” ^

Such letters, the congratulations of George Wythe, who
urged him to publish the “Manual of Parliamentary Practice”,
those of Pendleton, who consented to revise the final text and
to “freely cast his mite into the treasury”, were indeed balm on
the wounds made by the fierce attacks of the Federalist press.^
The end of the session was approaching and the most earnest
desire of the Federalists was to adjourn as soon as possible, for
fear that the envoys to France should announce the conclusion
of a treaty. Their power seemed on the wane, but Jefferson
was still very doubtful of ultimate victory. To Livingston he
wrote that his knowledge of the art, industry, and resources of
the other party did not permit him to be prematurely confident.
The tide had turned, to be sure, and the Federalists were losing
ground constantly, but the main question whether “that would
insure a Republican victory was stiU undecided and it might
take one or two elections more.” ^

Congress adjourned on May 14. During the session con-
gressional caucuses had nominated for the Federalists John
Adams, and General Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South
Carolina , the choice of the Republicans could only be Jefferson,
and for candidate to the vice presidency they selected Aaron
Burr of New York.

In the course of the summer, Adams and his wife moved to
the new Federal City laid out by Major Lenfant, which boasted
of one tavern, the Capitol, the President’s house, and a few
boarding houses, — a capital in the midst of the woods, in a
veritable wilderness of trees, with impassable paths, — a town
unable to lodge Congress except at Georgetown, which was

1 March 18, 1800 JeBerson Papers Library of Congress.

* Apnl 30, 1800. Memorial Edition, X, 163.

POLITICAL LEADER 363

connected with the new city by a clay road. Jefferson, accord-
ing to his custom, had hurried back to his “farm” and was
apparently absorbed by his domestic occupations, his children,
and grandchildren.

During the whole campaign he remained almost absolutely
silent, not daring to write, because his letters might have been
intercepted and used against him, receiving few visitors and
reading without comment the newspapers filled with the insults
and abuse of the Federalists. He broke his silence on few
occasions, but these occasions are worth studying in some detail.
In a letter to Monroe, written from Eppington, he discussed
the best plans for assisting Callender, then jailed under the
Sedition Act, who “should be substantially defended whether
privately or publicly” and whose case should be laid before the
legislature.^ These efforts did not avail since in August the
publicist wrote from his Richmond jail that he was in very bad
health “owing to the stink of the place.” ^ There is not much
that can be said for Callender, and Jefferson might have better
chosen his friends; but when one reflects on the accusations
commonly circulated against Jefferson at the time, the interest
taken by the Republican leader in the pamphleteer seems less
astonishing. If Callender had certainly insulted Adams and
Hamilton, had not the Reverend Cotton Mather Smith accused
Jefferson of “having robbed a widow and fatherless children of
an estate of which he was executor?” To Gideon Granger,
who had called his attention to the attacks of the clergyman,
Jefferson easily justified himself and seized the opportunity to
discuss with his friend a problem of general politics of far greater
importance. It had very little to do with the details of the
election and for his remarkable capacity to rise above contin-
gencies Jefferson truly deserves the title of “political phi-
losopher.” To incidents which he deemed without permanent

1 JeSerson Papers. Library of Congress, May 26, 1800.

’ Ibid,, August 14, 1800.

364 THOMAS JEFFERSON

significance fie paid little attention, but when dealing vfitfi a
phenomenon which seemed to him to indicate an important
change in the orientation of national policies, he always tried
to penetrate beyond the surface and reach the core of the
question.

The thing that now disturbed him more than the possible
victory of Adams and Pinckney was the fact that political
divisions seemed to correspond to a geographical division. Not
without reason had he written to Colonel Benjamin Hawkins ;
“those who knew us only from 1775 to 1793 can form no better
idea of us than of the inhabitants of the moon.” ^ The North
and the South had never been in complete harmony ; economi-
cally they were different and had difiercnt interests, but some-
thing new had developed during the seven or eight years just
passed. There was evidently a rift in the Union ; on several
occasions talks of secession had been heard. These rumors did
not correspond to any real danger, but if the elections proved
that the Union was formed of two solid blocks of States, if the
North remained Federalist and the South were Republican, the
very existence of the nation would be put in question. Yet this
seemed to be a probable eventuality. In these circumstances, a
victory of the South would mean a defeat of the North, the
country would be divided against itself and the Union would
be destroyed. This was particularly to be feared if the powers
of the Federal Government were enlarged. Leaving aside all
question of principle as to the moral merit of the questions inider
dispute, Jefierson tried to show, on the one hand, that it was
impossible ever to organize a centralized form of government
for the simple reason that the United States were too big and
covered a territory much too large. If a centralized govern-
ment were established on paper, it would be necessary to have
many agents of the Federal Government with extensive powers
distributed over all the States, and because of their very remote-

* March 14, iSoo Memorial Edition, X, 160

POLITICAL LEADER 3^5

ness they would be beyond the possibility of continuous control.
This could only mean corruption, plunder, and waste. On the
other hand, since on fimdamental questions it was impossible
to bring into accord the North and the South, the true and only
remedy was to minimize the chances of conflict and to reduce
to a minimum the powers and attributes of the Federal Govern-
ment. “The tiue theory of our Constitution is surely the
wisest and best, that the States are independent as to every-
thing within themselves, and united as to everything respecting
foreign nations.” Once more, therefore, he came back to the
same political theory that, in forming a social compact, liberty
is exchanged for security and only those rights are given up
which tire members of the new society have not full power to
enforce. Thus his theory of State rights was not only well
founded in theory but proved by practice and experience.
Any other system would almost necessarily conduce to a seces-
sion. The man who wrote these lines in the summer of 1800,
more than half a century before the Civil War, was certainly
not an ordinary politician ; his was the clear farsightedness of
a great statesman and true political philosopher.

Furthermore, in the controversy which had been going on
since 1793, Jefferson had been submitted to fierce criticism on
every possible ground ; as he wrote to McGregory, “the flood-
gates of calumny had been opened upon him.” It had been
particularly distressing to him to see that the religious issue
had been injected into politics. There is no doubt that his
Bill for Religious Freedom proceeded, not from hostility to
religion, but from a deep and sincere conviction, reached after
careful study of the evidence available that “in law” there
ought to he no connection between the Church and the State
and that if any had ever been estabb'shed, it was due to monlcish
fabrications and usurpations. That he had turned against
himself some of the Episcopalian clergy of Virginia was quite
natural, but before he went to France these attacks were neces-

366

THOMAS JEFFERSON

sarily limited and did not extend beyond the borders of the
State or take the aspect of a national question.

When, on the contrary, he began to be criticized for his sup-
posed foible for the French Revolution, such attacks became
far more pressing. The excesses of the Revolution were attri-
buted to the infidel doctrines of the French philosophers ; and,
being “contaminated” by French political philosophy, Jeffer-
son was naturally accused of having brought back from France
its atheism. These views received confirmation when he
befriended Volney and Priestley, one a confirmed atheist, as
Priestley himself had demonstrated, the other a Unitarian —
which in the eyes of the orthodox clergy was possibly worse.
The attacks from the pulpit became more numerous, and a
clergyman of New York, a close friend of Hamilton, even pub-
lished a pamplfiet entitled “The voice of Warning to Christians
on ensuing election”, in which Jefferson was accused of having
answered to a certain Doctor Smith, who expressed his surprise
at the condition of a church : “ It is good enough for Him who
was bom in a manger.”

Considering, on the other hand, that a large portion of the
clergy were enrolled under the Federalist banner, Jefferson had
come to the conclusion that the clergy had “ a very favorite hope
of obtaining an establishment of a particular form of Christian-
ity through the United States; and as every sect believes its
own form the true one, every one perhaps hopes for his own,
especially the Episcopalians and the Congregationalists.”
Whether this was so absolutely untrue or impossible, as some
historians seem to believe, is a question far too difficult to
answer and one which probably cannot be solved. On the face
of things it does seem that there was in it a grain of truth, for
no human organization, whether ecclesiastical or civil, ever relin-
quishes voluntarily the smallest particle of power or prestige.

One thing, however, is certain ; if Jefferson had said the word,
the religious issue would have been injected into the campaign ;

POLITICAL LEADER

367

and some of his friends, believing that “Christianity was the
strong ground of Republicanism”, were urging him to give his
consent, for it was only necessary for “Republicanism to ally
itself to the Christian religion, to overturn all the corrupted
political and religious institutions in the world.” ^ But this
was for Jcffcison a forbidden subject He had “sworn upon
the altar of God eternal hostility against evci y form of tyranny
over the mind of man” ; he had fonned “a view of the subject
which ought to displease neither the rational Christian nor the
Deists and would reconcile many to a character they have
too hastily rejected” , but this was not the time or the place
to discuss matters that ought to be reserved for a calm and dis-
passionate discussion between fiiends, so he refused to author-
ize the publication of any statement refeirmg to his religious
views.^

In the meantime the political campaign was going on and the
Federalists’ affairs were assuming a decidedly unhealthy com-
plexion. How this happened is a story of extraordinary intrigue
and machination, already told several times and stiU a delight
to historians fond of studying political deals. To a large extent
the victory of the Republicans was due to divisions in the Fed-
eralist camp and it came to pass that no other man did more
than Hamilton to assure Jefferson’s success. From the begin-
ning, the former leader of the Federalists had set himself against
Adams, employing every effort to have Pinckney receive the
first place in the nomination. The first sign of a Federalist
defeat appeared hi New York State, where Burr had liis head-
Cjuarters and had so cleverly maneuvered things tliat the State
went Republican at the April election. This was a personal
defeat for Hamilton and also a terrible blow to the Federalists.
Then Adams went into one of those fits of anger which make
him such a picturesque figure ; he decided that he had been

‘ Jeffeison Papers. Library of Congress, Benjamin Rnsb to JeSerson, August 22,
1800. * September 23, i8oo. Memonal Edition, X, 173.

368 THOMAS JEFFERSON

betrayed by his Cabinet, summarily dismissed his Secretary of
War, McHenry, and offered Pickering an opportunity to resign,
which the Secretary of State did not choose to take. Thereupon
the President informed him that he “discharged him from
further service in the Cabinet.” He then called mto the
Cabinet John Marshall of Virginia as Secretary of State and
Samuel Dexter of Massachusetts as Secretary of War. From
that time on, the political campaign reads as if the leaders of
the Federalists had really lost their heads. Hamilton bent all
his efforts towards holding another election in New York and,
failing in that, towards preventmg Adams from obtaining a
majority. The affair culminated in the publication of a pam-
phlet, entitled “The true conduct and character of John Adams,
Esq. President of the United States”, pointing out the wealaiess
of Adams’ character. The pamphlet was intended for private
distribution, but it found its way into the hands of the Repub-
licans ; Aaron Eurr had parts of it printed in the New London
Bee and the whole was soon to be given to the public. When
the whole pamphlet came out, it added more fuel to the raging
controversy. This is only one incident, but not the least sig-
nificant, among the many so vividly related_ by Mr. Bowers.

The electoral colleges met in each State on December 4.
Returns came in slowly to Washington but by the thirteenth
it was known, in so far as could be, that the Federalists were
defeated ; it also appeared that there was a tie between the two
Republican candidates. At this juncture Jefferson, who had
remained perfectly silent, took the matter in hand and cahnly
assumed that he would be elected. To Robert R. Livingston,
brother of Edward Livingston who was a member of Congress
from New York, Jefferson wrote a letter congratulating him on
his communications to the American Philosophical Society and
discussing quite seriously the discovery “of some large bones
supposed to be of the mammoth” in the vicinity of New York.
Then, as in an afterthought, he mentioned the political situ-

POLITICAL LEADER 369

ation. The matter of the election was as good as settled : “We
may, therefore, venture to hazard propositions on that hypoth-
esis without being justly subjected to raillery or ridicule.”
“To put the vessel on a Republican tack”, they would require
the entire cooperation of “men who could at once inspire the
nation with perfect confidence in their honesty and talents”,
and Jefferson asked Livingston whether he would not assume
the Secretaryship of the Navy. That in his own mind he
considered the election well over appears in the sentence in
which he speaks, not as a candidate but as the leader of his
party, and as if no other hypothesis could enter his mind:
“Though I have been too honorably placed in front of those
who are to enter the breach so happily made, yet the energies of
every individual are necessary, and in the very place where his
energies can most serve the enterprise.” ’•

The next day he wrote in the same vein to Aaron Burr to
congratulate him in no xmcertain terms on his election as Vice
President, expressing his regrets that this distinction would
prevent him from availing himself of the services of Burr in the
Cabinet. He based his conclusion on the assurance he had
received that South Carolina would withdraw one vote from
Burr, that Smith of Tennessee would give its second vote to
Gallatin. It was also surmised that the vote of Georgia would
not be entire. This would leave Burr well ahead of Adams but
decidedly in the second place. Jefferson indicated that several
of the Federalists had expressed the hope that “the two Repub-
lican tickets may be equal” and in that case they expected to
prevent a choice by the House and “let the Government devolve
on a President of the Senate.” Then came a gently insinuating
sentence : “Decency required that I should be so entirely pas-
sive during the late contest that I have never once asked whether
arrangements had been made to prevent so many from drop-
ping votes intentionally, as might frustrate half the Republican

'■December 14, 1800. Memorial Edition, X, 176.

370 THOMAS JEFFERSON

wish; nor did I doubt till lately that such had been made.”
In the last paragraph, Jefferson, refusing even to consider that
Burr might aspire to the presidency, indicated that he con-
sidered the matter as settled and firmly put Burr where he
belonged :

While I must congratulate you, my dear Sir, on the issue of this
contest, because it is more honorable, and doubtless more grateful to
you than any station within the competence of the chief magistrate,
yet for myself, and for the substantial service of the public, I feel
most sensibly the loss we sustain of your aid in the new administra-
tion. It leaves a chasm in my arrangements, which cannot be
adequately filled up.

If we put things together, the letter of Jefferson certainly
meant first that the time had come to make some “arrange-
ments” to thwart the schemes of the Federalists ; second, that a
tie was almost certain, and finally that it was up to Burr to
declare that he was not running for the presidency.

This conclusion is all the more probable because three days
later, writing to John Breckenridge, Jefferson did not mention
again Georgia and Tennessee, but declarcd that “we are brought
into a dilemma by the probable equality of the two Republican
candidates.” Then he added ; “The Federalists in Congress
mean to take advantage of this, and either to prevent an elec-
tion altogether, or reverse what has been understood to have
been the wishes of the people, as to the President and Vice-
President ; wishes which the Constitution did not permit them
specially to designate.” ^ Nothing could be clearer ; it was to
some extent the situation of 1796, but reversed as to the can-
didates, and Jefferson expected that Burr would do the right
thing by him.

This, however, was not so obvious to Burr himself. The
letter he sent in reply to Jefferson must have been most dis-
appointing in this respect. The colonel side-stepped the issue,

' Becember i8, iSoo. Memorial Edition, X, 183.

POLITICAL LEADER

371

refused to come out frankly and did not write a single line that
could be constructed as an acceptance of Jefferson’s point of
view. On December 31, Jefferson wrote to Tench Coxe to
express his opinion that an agreement between the two higher
candidates was their only hope “to prevent the dissolution of
the Government and a danger of anarchy, by an operation,
bungling indeed and imperfect, but better than letting the
Legislature take the nomination of the Executive entirely from
the people.” ’

This could have been construed as a hint to Burr to give up
his unavowed hopes of becoming President. But Burr, who was
in New York, could not easily be communicated with and kept
his sphinxlike silence. January passed without Jefferson’s
finding any necessity of writing any political letters. With
Hugh Williamson he discussed the range of temperature in
Louisiana and whether the turkey was a native bird : ^ with
Wfiliam Dunbar the temperature, Indian vocabularies and the
origin of the rainbow.

In February, however, he again wrote to Burr. He had
been informed that certain individuals were attempting “to
sow tares between us that might divide us and oiu: friends.”
He assured Burr that he had never written anything that could
be regarded as injurious by his running mate ; the only time
that he had discussed his conduct was in a letter to Brecken-
ridge written on December 18, in which he had expressed the
conviction that the wishes of the people were that he and not
Burr be President. That was a pure statement of fact at which
no man could taie offense. This tune, Burr apparently did
not answer at all, and while the House was preparing for the
balloting, Jefferson discussed with Caspar Wistar the bones
found in the State of New York, “the vertebra, part of the jaw,
with two grinders, the tusks, which some have called the horns,

' Memorial Edition, X, 188.

® January lo, 1800. Ibid., X, 188.

372 THOMAS JEFFERSON

the sternum, the scapula, the tibia and fibula, the tarsus and
metatarsus, and even the phalanges and innominata.” ^

On the morning of the election and before going to the Capitol
he wrote to Tench Coxe ■ “Which of the two will be elected,
and whether either, I deem perfectly problematical ; and my
mind has long been equally made up for either of the three
events.” This was on a Wednesday. After the result of the
election had been officially announced, the House retired to
proceed to the election of the President. Ballots were taken,
Jefferson receiving eight States, Burr six, nine being necessary
to a choice. The House stayed in continuous session tiU eight
o’clock the next mornhig, taking twenty-seven ballots without
any change in the results; members of the House dozing be-
tween ballots, snatching a bit of sleep whenever they could,
all of them admiring the fortitude of Joseph N. Nicholson who,
although sick in bed, had been brought to the House and rested
in a committee room, voting at each ballot. The House
adjourned until eleven o’clock on Friday and then took two
successive ballots without being able to break the deadlock.
On Saturday three ballots were taken without any change in the
alignment, and they adjourned until Monday. In the mean-
time passions were raging. The Federalists had been told in no
equivocal terms that, should they attempt to have the Govern-
ment devolve to some member of the present administration,
“the day such an act would pass, the Middle States would
arm” and that “no such usurpation would be tolerated even
for a single day.”

On the other hand, Jefferson had been approached by the
more sensible heads of the Federalists, and apparently by
Gouvemeur Morris, who stopped him as he was coming out
from the Senate Chamber, and had offered to influence one
member of Vermont, provided he would declare : “ i. that he
would not turn all the Federalists out of office; 2. that he

^ February 3. Memorial Edition, X, 197.

POLITICAL LEADER 373

would not reduce the navy; and 3. would not wipe oS the
public debt.” To which Jefferson answered that he would
not become President by capitulation and would not make any
declaration. Then he went to see Adams, who seemed ready to
approve of the choice of Jefferson as President and who told him
that he could have himself elected by subscribing to conditions
analogous to those indicated by Morris. Finally he was visited
in his room by Dwight Foster, senator from Massachusetts, who
also reiterated the same offer. These are, undoubtedly, some
of the maneuvers he mentioned on Sunday, the day of rest, in
a letter he wrote to Monroe : “ Many attempts have been made
to obtain terms and promises from me, I have declared to them
unequivocally, that I would not receive the government on
capitulation, that I would not go into it with my hands tied.” ^

On Sunday and Monday parleyings went on, caucuses were
held, and no change was yet apparent. But on Tuesday morn-
ing an agreement was reached. It was described by Jefferson
himself as follows :

“Morris of Vermont withdrew, which made Lyon’s vote
that of his State. The Maryland Federalists put in four
blanks, which made the positive ticket of their colleagues the
vote of the State. South Carolina and Delaware put in six
blanks, so there were ten states for one candidate, four for
another, and two blanks.” And the speaker of the House,
Theodore Sedgwick, one of Jefferson’s bitterest enemies, was
forced to announce his election.

The letter he wrote to Monroe the same day is not a paean
of triumph. The long-disputed victory, the irreducibility of a
large portion of the Federalists, made him fearful lest the fight
would soon renew, Furthermore, Adams had at once started
makhig new appointments, naturally without consulting his
successor; Bayard was nominated plenipotentiary to the
French Republic, “Theophilus Parsons, Attorney General of the

’• February 15, 1801. Memorial Edition, X, 201

374 THOMAS JEFFERSON

United States in the room of C. Lee, who, with Keith Taylor
cum muUis aliis are appointed judges under the new system.
H. G. Otis is nominated a District Attorney.” ^

On his side, Jefferson wrote at once to Henry Dearborn to
offer him the Secretaryship of War in his Cabinet and cour-
teously communicated with Dexter, Secretary of the Treasury,
and Stoddart, Secretary of the Navy, to thank them for their
offer to conduct the affairs of their departments pending the
arrival of their successors. To a certain Major WUliain Jackson
whom he did not know and who had written him to express
the fear that he would discriminate against commerce, he
answered that he “might appeal to evidences of his attention
to the commerce and navigation of our country in different
stations connected with them.”

This was an evident allusion to his mission to France and to
the activity he had displayed in defending the commercial
interests of the United States. He resented particularly the
fact that he had been represented as a friend to agriculture
and an enemy to commerce, “the only means of disposing of its
products.” ^ The true position of Jefferson on this matter
has already been pointed out in a preceding chapter ; but the
fact that the letter was written the very day he was notified
of his election is proof enough that he already intended to con-
ciliate both the agricultural and the commercial interests of
the country. To the smoothing over of old differences of
opinion he bent all his efforts during the three weeks that sep-
arated him from his inauguration. Bayard having refused his
appointment to France, he approached at once Robert R.
Livingston, intending to give the nomination to the Senate at
the first opportunity. At the same time he repeated that the
great body of the Federalist troops was discouraged and truly
repentant, or disposed to come back into the fold. Those who

^ February i8, i8oi Memorial Edition, X, 203.

® Ibid , X, 206

POLITICAL LEADER 375

were so inclined should be received with open arms for ‘'If we
can once more get social intercourse restored to its pristuie
harmony, I shall believe we have not lived in vain ; and that it
may, by rallymg them to true Republican principles, which few
of them had thrown off, I sanguinely hope.” ^

He resigned from the Chair of the Senate on the twenty-
eighth, and made the necessary preparations for the inaugu-
ration. The ceremonies were to be very simple but dignified.
John Mai shall, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, was asked
by Jefferson himself to administer the oath, and on March 4,
1801, the new President was inaugurated, while John Adams,
mourning for his son, too tired, too bruised, to find courage
to attend the inauguration of his successor, was starting on
his way to New England

1 To Thomas Lomax, February 25, 1801 Memonal Edition, X, 211

BOOK FIVE
The Presidency

CHAPTER I

“ALL REPUBLICANS, ALL FEDERALISTS”

The battle over, Jefferson’s first and only desire seems to
have been to bring about a reunion of the former political oppo-
nents. He had hardly been elected when he declared that he
was not the choice of one party, but that the analysis of the last
ballot showed clearly that “the fonner federalists have found
themselves aggregated with us and that they are in a state of
mind to be aggregated with us,” ^

And this, much to the surprise and disappointment of the
militants who had fought the hard battle with him and for him,
was the keynote of his inaugural speech. Throwing overboard
his former defense of the French Revolution, he did not hesitate
to attribute the political storm which the ship had just weath-
ered to the baneful influence of European disturbances :

During the throes and convulsions of the ancient world, during
the agonizing spasms of infuriated man, seeking through blood and
slaughter his long-lost liberty, it was not wonderful that the agita-
tion of the billows would reach even this distant and peaceful shore ;
that this should divide opinions as to measures of safety. But every
difference of opinion is not a difference of principle. We have called
by different names brethren of the same principles.

Then came the final and definitive formula: “We are all
republicans — we are all federalists.”

In more than one sense this was the most characteristic and
the most masterly of Jefferson’s political utterances. The battle
of Capitol Hill was ended, the last streamers of smoke had

* To Thomas Lomax, February sSi rSoi. Memorial Edition, X, 210.

38 o TI-IOMAS JEFFERSON

floated away and America had found herself : “a rising nation,
spread over a wide and fruitful land, traversing all the seas
with the rich productions of her industry, engaged in commerce
with nations who feel power and forget right, advancing rapidly
to destinies beyond the reach of mortal eyes.”

This was not written simply for effect and for the public eye.
To Monroe, Jefferson had declared that the policy of the new
administration would not be a policy of reprisals. The victory
had been won partly through the repentance of former Federal-
ists who had seen their error, and during the awful suspense of
the week of the eleventh to the seventeenth of February, had
feared that the country would become a prey to anarchy.
These he welcomed back into the fold ; the leaders, of course,
were irreconcilable, but the majority were to be forgiven, and
few removals from office were to be made on the ground of
political divergences of opinion. “ Some, I know, must be made.
They must be as few as possible, done gradually, and bottomed
on some malversation or inherent disqualification.” ^

Of the thousands of Federal officers in the United States, the
President estimated that not twenty would have to be removed,
while in two or three instances, officers removed by Mr. Adams
for refusing to sign addresses were to be restored. Jefferson
realized that by so acting and “stopping thus short in the
career of removal” he would give offense to many of his friends,
and he added with some melancholy : “That torrent has been
pressing me heavily, and wUl require all my force to bear up
against; but my maxim is “fiat justitia, mat caelum.” ®

All this sounds perfectly sincere and true. Even the most
superficial consideration of Jefferson’s life would convince any
one that he was not a man of vindictive character. By nature a
pacifier and a harmonizer, nothing would have been farther from
his program than to revive the old fires and to prolong party

' Maich 7, i8oi. Memorial Edition, X, 218.

’ To Doctor Benjamin Rnsh, Match 24, i8oi. Ibid,, X, 241.

ALL REPUBLICANS 381

strifes. But if it takes only one to declare war, it takes two to
make peace, and the defeated party was in no peaceful mood.
Hamilton was removed from the scene, and the form of govern-
ment was apparently definitively settled by the election of
Jefferson, but the Federalists had not given up every hope ; they
were still strongly intrenched and the battle went on during all
of Jefferson’s administration. It was not so spectacular as the
fight with Hamilton, for the chief protagonist, John Marshall,
lacked the dramatic qualities of the former leader of the Federal-
ists ; but it was no less momentous and no less important for
the destinies of the United States.

When it came to actual removals, however, difficulties arose
immediately. Whether in all cases Jefferson was rightly
advised or inspired is open to question. The wisdom of
appointing Samuel Bishop, a man of “sound understanding,
pure integrity and unstained character”, as collector of New
Hiaven may be doubted, and there was something undeniably
worth considering in the protest of New Haven merchants,
that a man seventy-seven years old was unfit for such an oflfice.
The incident in itself was paltry, but the letter written by
the President in answer to the protest put once again into light
that curious mixture of theoretical idealism and practical
political sense so remarkable in Jefferson. After all, the
Federalists had begun with filling every office with their
partisans and it was necessary to reestablish a just balance,
even if some individuals had to suffer. If the rights of the
minority could not be ignored, the majority had its rights also
and could not submit to the monopoly claimed by the Fed-
eralists; “Total exclusions,” concluded the President, “call
for prompt corrections. I shall correct the procedure; but
that done, return wiUi joy to that state of things, when only
questions concerning a candidate shall be, is he honest? Is
he capable? Is he faithful to the Constitution?” In other

* To Elias Slupman and others, July 12, 1801.

382 THOMAS JEFFERSON

words, Jefferson was not ready to proclaim the principle so
frankly avowed later “to the victor belong the spoils.” His
principle was and remained absolutely different. But he
considered that he was confronted by a situation which had to
be remedied without any delay, and in his behavior he reminds
one in some way of the French publicist who, although theo-
retically opposed to the death penalty, declared, “Que mes-
sieurs les assassins comniencent!” Certainly this is not the
pure and exalted morality of the political philosopher, but
neither is it the cynical attitude of the political “boss”, and
one may wonder how many men who have occupied high
offices would stand better than Jefferson in this respect if
documents were available and could be subjected to the
same scrutiny.

The fact remains, however, that during the battle from
which he had come out victorious, Jefferson had to employ and
sometimes associate with men whose character was not abso-
lutely spotless. The presence of Aaron Burr in the government
was already a thorn in his side. It was also particularly unfortu-
nate that he had given aid and assistance to Callender, whose
scurrilous attacks against Adams went far beyond a legitimate
discussion of public utterances and actions of a man at the head
of the government. Callender had been sentenced under the
Sedition Act to a term in jail and liberated by Jefferson with aU
the other victims of the act when he took office. It was even
more unfortunate that the pamphlet of Callender, “The Pros-
pect Before Us”, was reprinted imder a modified title as the
“History of the Administration of John Adams” more than a
year after the new administration had taken hold of things.
It was also regrettable that the son of John Adams should
have been removed from office after the election. Soon after
the death of Jefferson’s younger daughter, Mrs. Adams, who
had befriended the little girl when she arrived in London all
alone in r787, wrote to the bereaved father to express her

ALL REPUBLICANS 3S3

sympathy. Jefferson took the opportunity to reassert his
personal friendship for John Adams. He could not help
mentioning, however, that one act of Adams’ administration
he had to consider as personally unkind, his last appointment to
office of Jefferson’s most ardent political enemies.^ This letter
called for an answer, and Mrs. Adams was not a woman to miss
an opportunity to express her husband’s views and her own on
the removal of Federal judges and particularly of John Quincy.
Thus Jefferson was led to write a final letter in which he ex-
pressed more clearly than he had done anywhere else his opinion
on the judiciary and on the place it should occupy in the gen-
eral scheme of government. To understand this letter fully
it is necessary to go back to the beginnings of Jefferson’s admin-
istration.

The original draft of Jefferson’s message to Congress,
December 8, 1801, contained a paragraph which, after more
mature reflection, the President decided to omit “as capable
of being chicaned, and furnishing something to the opposition
to make a handle of.” ^ In it Jefferson held the theory
that the three powers existing in any government had been
distributed among three equal authorities, constituting each
a check on one or both the others. The President asserted
that each of these three branches of the government had a
right “ to decide on the validity of an act according to its
own judgment and xmcontrouled by the opinions of any other
department.” According to this theory, even if opposition
developed among different departments, no permanent ill
could ensue, since at the next election the people were at
liberty to refuse to reelect those whose interpretation seemed
erroneous.

Jefferson’s disapproval of the Sedition Act had been known
for a long time ; he had a right to assume that his election meant

1 June 13, 1804. Memorial Edition, XI, 28.

’ A, J. Beveridge : “Life of Marshall”, II, 51-53 and Appendix.

384 THOMAS JEFFERSON

that the people approved of his position and to make this
declaration ;

On mature deliberation, in the presence of the nation, and under
the tie of the solemn oath which binds me to them and to my duty,
I do declare that I hold that act in palpable and unqualified contra-
diction to the constitution, considering it then as a nullity, I have
relieved from oppression under it those of my fellow citizens who
were within the reach of the functions confided to me.

In its final form the message was far less provocative. It
simply contained the statement that “the judiciary system . . .
and especially that portion of it recently enacted, will, of course,
present itself to the contemplation of Congress.” But the
Federalists and particularly Marshall were not placated by this
apparent moderation ; they knew that the assault against the
judiciary was about to begin. The debate between Federalists
and Republicans had already been transferred to another
ground.

No better account of it can be found than the chapters
written on the subject by Albert J. Beveridge in his “Life of
Marshall.” It must be remembered, however, that Beveridge’s
account was necessarily colored by his own political views, as
were the views of most historians of the subject.^ One of the
first episodes of the battle was the repeal of the Judiciary Act
passed in 1801 by the Federalists, in order to reorganize the
Supreme Court and to increase the number of Federal judges.
This was immediately followed by the impeachment of Judge
Pickering, the deposition of Judge Addison by the Senate of
Pennsylvania, and the famous decision given by Marshall on
“ Marbury versus Madison.” These incidents were of unequal
importance and significance. It was recognized by Pickering’s
friends and family that the judge was half-demented and for
several years had been unable to fulfill his duties. But since

1 “Lite of Maishall”, H, 31-222; McMastei, “History of the People of the United
States”, Vol. HI.

ALL REPUBLICANS 385

the Act of 1801 had been repealed, no one seemed to have
authority at the time to remove the judge from of&ce. The
Pickering case simply provided the Republicans with an oppor-
tunity to test out their favorite contention, that impeaclunent
was unrestricted and could be enforced against any officer of
the government deemed undesirable by two thirds of the
Senate.

Of far greater importance was the decision of Marshall in
“Marbury versus Madison.” The senior member of the
Supreme Court formulated on this occasion a doctrine on the
powers of the Court which, although never written in the Con-
stitution, was to obtain final recognition and which to this day
had remained one of the many unwritten laws of the land.
Another most curious situation this, so disconcerting to histo-
rians and observers trained in the principles of Roman law,
but often recurring in American politics and administrative life.
The case itself was of no importance. Marbury was one of the
“midnight judges” whose commission, signed by Adams, had
been withheld by Madison, on the theory that the powers of the
former President to make appointments had really expired,
not on the tlrird of March, 1801, at midnight, but on the day his
successor was elected. It was maintained by the administra-
tion that the commission not having been delivered Marbury
had no right to take office and to sit on the bench. Marbury
had appealed to the Supreme Court, but the sessions of the
Court being suspended for fourteen months by Congress,
Marshall had at first no opportunity to declare himself publicly
on the matter.

When he finally passed on the case, the Chief Justice saw at
once that his hour had come, and gave his definition of the
powers of the Court in its relation to the executive and the
legislative. Curiously enough, as Beveridge remarked, the
matter had never before come up and would have remained
undecided for a long time, if this particular juncture had not

386 THOMAS JEFFERSON

made it a question of paramoimt importance for the destinies
of the country. Briefly summed up, the theory of Marshall,
shorn of its legal phraseology, was this : The happiness of the
American people rested on certain principles embodied in the
Constitution. These principles coifld not be altered by legisla-
tion ; if, however, the legislative passed a law evidently con-
trary to the Constitution, there must be for the individual some
recourse, some means of asserting his rights. In cases where
Congress adopts laws contrary to the Constitution, these laws
must be void. On this principle Jefferson and Marshall were
in complete agreement. But from that point on they differed
widely. The next question was to determine where does the
power rest to declare a law unconstitutional ? With the Execu-
tive and even with the States, Jefferson had first declared in his
draft of i8oi. With the Supreme Court, answered Marshall;
for this is essentially a judicial function. Under this construc-
tion, the Constitution remains the supreme law of the land, but
it is within the powers attributed by the Constitution to the
judiciary, for the Supreme Court to decide on the constitu-
tionality of an act passed by the legislature. Thus the Court
is not placed above the Constitution, but its judges stand as
the keepers and interpreters of the superior law of the country.

Jefferson did not engage directly in a controversy with
Marshall and held his peace. But, as he was wont, he seized
another opportunity to express his views on the subject, and he
did it in his letter written to Mrs. Adams on September 1 1, 1804.
In this, he maintained that ‘‘nothing in the Constitution has
given the judges a right to decide for the Executive, more than
to the Executive to decide for them. Both magistrates are
equally independent in the sphere of action assigned to them.”
Judges believing a law to be constitutional have a right to pass
sentences. But “ the Executive believing the law to be uncon-
stitutional were bound to remit the execution of it ; because
that power has been confided to them by the Constitution. ”

ALL REPUBLICANS 387

What he did not say on this occasion, but repeated on many
others, was that, the ultimate source of authority resting in the
people, it was for the people to decide at the next election in
case a conflict of interpretation should arise between any of
the three branches of the government. In case of a conflict
between the judiciary and the legislative, however, impeach-
ment proceedings could be initiated and judges removed in a
regular and, according to him, perfectly constitutional way.

It must be recognized here that the position taken by
Jefferson was perfectly logical, far more logical than the inter-
pretation given out by Marshall. Whether Jefferson’s theory
would have worked out satisfactorily is quite another matter.
It is only too evident that perfectly logical constructions do not
always fit the complexity and contradictions of human affairs.
The system of democracy which was Jefferson’s ideal at that
time might have worked in the case of a New England town
meeting ; it would have been more difficult to apply to the
government of a State. In the case of a large and growing
federation of States, it would have injected into presidential
and congressional elections constant elements of discord and
bitterness. Thus the cost of liberty would not have been
eternal vigilance, but eternal strife and political dissensions.

It may even be doubted whether Jefferson would ever have
entertained such an extreme theory if at that time he had not
been moved by immediate considerations. He had come to
see in the judiciary, as it was constituted after the appointments
made by Adams, an institution endangering the very life of the
Republic. As for Marshall, who had hurled a challenge at
the executive and the legislative branches of the government,
it had to be ascertained whether some means could not be found
to remove him from office.

That such was the ultimate intent of the Republican leaders
was understood generally when proceedings were started to
impeach Judge Chase of the Supreme Court. As in the case of

388 THOMAS JEFFERSON

Pickering, the Republicans had carefully selected the card they
intended to play. Was he not the very man who had sentenced
Fries to the gallows and Callender to jail, who had been relent-
less in his application of the Sedition Act and in the prosecution
of Republicans ? He had finally, and this was the immediate
ground for his impeachment, bitterly criticized from the bench
the repeal of the Federal judiciary act, and predicted that the
country would be enslaved by mob tyranny and that soon
“ they would all establish the worst kind of government known
to man.”

The impeachment proceedings took place in the Senate room
elaborately decorated for the occasion with a display of crimson,
green, and blue cloth draping the rows of benches and the sec-
tions reserved for the heads of departments, foreign ministers,
members of the House, and the general public. The Senate con-
vened to hear the case on February 4, 1805, and for almost a
month all other business was practically suspended. But it
was far more than the fate of a single judge which was going
to be decided. On the decision of the Senate hung not only the
future of the Constitution but probably the fate of the Union.
For New England had already on several occasions threatened
secession ; the North resented what was already tenned “Vir-
ginia tyranny”, and it was to be feared that these feelings of
disaffection might be strengthened. It was also the most
exciting ceremony the new capital had yet witnessed, and the
formalities of the proceedings, the effort to clothe them with
dignity and solemnity, presented a strange contrast with the
uncouth appearance of the city itself, with its ramshackle board-
ing houses, its muddy streets, and surrounding wilderness.

The debates provided a rare occasion for an extraordinary
display of American eloquence. This is not one of the least
surprises to a student of American civilization, to discover the
taste of the people as a whole for oratory and the remarkable
gift of American orators for long speeches, even in the early

ALL REPUBLICANS 389

days. Scarcely less surprising was the capacity of American
audiences to listen patiently for long hours and with apparent
interest to discussions and debates. It seems as if the gift
attributed by Csesar to the Gauls of old had been transferred to
the new continent and to a people racially much different.
Oratory was to a certain extent a new art, for few occasions
were offered in the colonial times for long political speeches;
but even in the early days of the Revolution, born oratorg
appeared and since that time have filled the legislative halls
with an inexhaustible flow of eloquence. This is said without
the least irony and merely as another illustration of the danger
of generalizing when discussing national characteristics. To
the point these speeches were, perhaps, but they were not short
by any means. A careful study of the development of the
. American school of oratory would certainly repay a specialist in
the history of public speaking.

During the session, the oratorical stars were Luther Martin
of Maryland, who spoke for Chase, and John Randolph, who
summed up the case for the administration. It appeared,
however, when the final vote was taken, that Jefferson had not
been able to keep his party in hand. There were thirty-four
senators, of whom nine were Federahsts and twenty-five Repub-
licans. Twenty-two votes were necessary to convict, but the
administration was able to muster only si.xteen for impeach-
ment, and on one count Chase was proved unanimously “not
guilty.” Fox the time being John Marshall was safe, and the
acquittal of Chase was undoubtedly a personal defeat for the
President.

This wound to his amour-propre was compensated by the
success of the last election. Jefferson had been reelected with-
out opposition ; the strength of the Federalists as a separate
party had dwindled to the vanishing point, and only three days
separated him from the beginning of his second term. But
everybody understood that the matter at issue had not been

390

THOMAS JEFFERSON

settled and that another test would have to be made. The very
day Chase was acquitted, John Randolph introduced a resolu-
tion proposing an amendment to the Constitution, to the
effect that “The judges of the Supreme Court, and of all other
courts of the United States, shall be removed by the President
on the joint addresses of both Houses of Congress requesting the
same, anything in the Constitution of the United States not-
withstanding.” This was referred to a committee and, as
Congress had only three more days to sit, it was decided by
sixty-eight votes against thirty-three that the motion would
be made the order of the day for the first Monday in December.

The assault against the judiciary constitutes one of the most
striking episodes of Jefferson’s first administration and has
received its due share at the hands of American historians. It
must not be forgotten, however, that even in other respects the
President had no easy sailing. The friend of Priestley, Thomas
Cooper, Volney, and Thomas Paine continued to be represented
in the press and in the public as the champion of infidelity.
The President could not engage in any controversy in order to
justify himself but, according to his favorite methods, he
encouraged his friends to hit back, and he became more and
more convinced that the intrusion of the churches into politics
was one of the worst evils that could befall any coimtry. He
soon came to the conclusion that many members of the clergy
were unworthy to speak in the name of the great teacher ; that
the Christian doctrine had degenerated in their hands, and that
no true religion could long exist when it was intrusted to the
priests. Hence the many expressions of his preference for the
Quakers so often found in his correspondence.

The mild and simple principles of the Christian philosophy would
produce too much calm ; too much regularity of good, to extract from
its disciples a support from a numerous priesthood, were they not to
sophisticate it, split it into hairs, and twist its texts tiU they cover
the divine morality of its author with mysteries, and require the

ALL REPUBLICANS 39^

priesthood to explain them. The Quakers seem to have discovered
this. They have no priests, therefore no schisms. They judge of
the text by the dictates of common sense and common morality.'-

Thei indignation of the Federalists and the clergy reached a
paroxysm -when it -was discovered that the President had not
only invited Paine to come to America but had even promised
him passage on a public vessel. For Paine was no longer
remembered as the eloquent political writer who in prophetic
accents had celebrated the uniqueness of America’s position in
the world. He was the detestable atheist who had participated
in the bloody excesses of the French Revolution — a wretch
unworthy of being thus honored by a Christian nation. Once
more religion was injected into politics. The President was
bitterly reproved by the New England clergy for having refused
to proclaim days of fasting and thanksgivings as his pred-
ecessors had done, and Jefferson, who would have preferred
to let sleeping dogs he, had to come out and explain his posi-
tion on an alliance between “Church and State, under the
authority of the Constitution.” *

That Jefferson, who was so restive under public criticism,
suffered even more than he dared admit appears in many
passages of his letters. “Every word of mine,” he wrote to
Mazzei, “which they can get hold of, however innocent, how-
ever orthodox, is twisted, tormented, perverted, and like the
words of holy writ, are made to mean everything but what they
were intended to mean.” * The whole subject is not an easy
one to treat and cannot be discussed here; but it would be
very difficult to reach a fair estimate of internal politics during
Jefferson’s first administration if that element of hostility were
entirely left out. We can only express the hope that some day
it will receive due attention. An investigation of the New

‘ To Elbridge Gerry, March 39, i8oi. Memorial Edition, X, 251.

® To the Attorney-general, January r, 1802. Ibid., X, 305.

’ July iS, 1804. Ibid; XI, 38.

392

THOMAS JEFFERSON

England papers and Church publications of the time would
undoubtedly bring to light many hidden currents of hostility.

But, in spite of these difficulties, the new administration went
ahead with a program of political reforms of great moment. No
tradition for the respective duties of the Cabinet members and
their relation to the President had yet been established. Under
Washington’s administration letters sent to the President were
referred by him to the departments concerned to be acted upon,
and letters sent to the department heads were submitted to the
President with a proposed answer. Generally they were sent
back with his approbation ; sometimes an alteration was sug-
gested, and when the subject was particularly important it was
reserved for a conference. In this manner Washington always
was in accurate possession of all facts and proceedings in all
parts of the Union. This procedure had been impossible to fol-
low during Adams’ administration, owing to the long and habi-
tual absences of the President from the seat of government,
and little by little the department heads had assumed more
and more responsibility, with the result that the government
had four different heads “drawing sometimes in different direc-
tions.” This usurpation of powers and this maladministration
Jefferson meant to end. In a very courteous, but very firm
manner, he reminded the members of the Cabinet that the
President had been intrusted with a certain set of duties in-
cumbent upon him and for which he was responsible before
the pubhc, and that he considered it necessary to return to
the procedure followed by Washington. What had been an
informal custom was to become a regular and official routine ;
it entailed an enormous expenditure of time on the part of the
President, a great flexibility of mind, and a necessity of adapt-
ing himself to many different problems in the course of one day.
To a large extent, Jefferson is responsible for placing on the
shoulders of the chief executive the enormous load under which
several Presidents have broken down.

ALL REPUBLICANS 393

This was not the most conspicuous reform introduced by
JefEerson in the plan of government, yet it was one of the most
important. Of no less consequence was the reform of the
financial system of the United States. The privilege of the
bank had still several years to run, but many other modifica-
tions could be introduced at once. Hamilton had multiplied
the number of internal taxes and at the same time the numlmr
of Federal office-holders in order to strengthen his hold on the
government. These had to be done away with, as well as the
abominable excise taxes which had created so many difficulties
under the preceding administrations. They were at best a
temporary expedient, to be resorted to only in case of war, and
the Federal Government had to make an effort to return to the
more orthodox system of bringing its expenditures within the
limits of revenue raised by taxes on importations. This was
perfectly consistent with Jefferson’s theory of the State rights
and the general functions of the Federal Government. To sub-
stitute economy for taxation, to reduce the debt as rapidly as
possible, to keep down the expenses for the navy and the army,
— such was the policy of the new administration, and in his
second annual message on December 15, 1802, Jefferson could
point out with pleasure that “in the department of finance the
receipts of external duties for the last twelve months have
exceeded those of any former year.” To care for the Louisiana
Purchase, Gallatin recommended a loan of $11,250,000, running
for fifteen years and carrying a six per cent, interest. But in his
fourth message the President declared that “the state of our
finances continues to fulfill our expectations. Eleven million
and a half dollars received in the course of the year ending on
the thirtieth of September last, have enabled us, after meeting
all the ordinary expenses of the year, to pay upward of
$3,600,000 of the public debt, exclusive of interest.” Thus it
was amply demonstrated that the financial structure of the Fed-
eral Government had not been endangered by a departure from

394

THOMAS JEFFERSON

Hamilton’s policies. It is worth noting also that Jefferson’s
party, at that time, stood for a strong tariff, while the last
Federalists advocated internal taxes. In that respect, at least,
it is hardly possible to say that the present-day Democrats con-
tinue the Jeffersonian policies.

This system, however, presented many advantages in the
eyes of Jefferson. In his first message he had made one of those
many declarations, so often found in official documents of the
sort, by which men in public life are wont to deifne their policies
in almost sibylline terms, so as to express their own aspirations
and satisfy the members of their party without arousing undue
antagonism in an influential minority. “Agriculture,” he had
written, “manufactures, commerce, and navigation, the four
piUars of our prosperity, are the most thriving when left most
free to individual enterprise.” But at once he had added;
“Protection from casual embarrassments, however, may some-
times be reasonably interposed. If in the course of your
observations or inquiries they should appear to need any aid
within the limits of our constitutional powers, your sense of their
importance is a sufficient assurance they will occupy your atten-
tion.” This second statement could only mean one thing, that
the President was not ready to depart entirely and radically from
Hamilton’s policy of giving encouragement to manufactures.
But there is no doubt that in his opinion America was to
remain essentially an agricultural nation. He still had before
him the vision of a large country in which every citizen would
live on his own land and from this land derive most of his sub-
sistence instead of congregating in large cities. It was a
Vergilian vision magnified a million times ; it was based also
to a large extent on his own experience at Monticello where he
had proved that it was possible to manufacture tools, to bake
bricks, to make furniture, and to maintain a comparatively
large family on the products of the soil. He was not ready to
antagonize openly those who dreamed of another future for

ALL REPUBLICANS 395

America, and he did not believe that he had a right to do so,
since his duty was to carry out the wishes of the people.

Jefferson was not the man to take the lead in these matters,
but he was not the man either to oppose any measure to encour-
age manufactures and commerce that Congress would deem
proper to adopt. On this point he had not varied since the
letter he had written from Paris to Hogendorp. His preference
for “an agricultural condition” remained largely theoretical,
sentimental, and personal. He may be considered as the
leader of an agrarian party, he may have felt in sympathy with
the French Physiocrats, but when it came to practice he acted
very much like Du Pont de Nemours himself who, in spite of
his theories, spent all he had to establish a tannery and a
powder mill near Wilmington, and at the end of his days pro-
posed to the American Government a “Plan for the Encourage-
ment of Manufactures in America.” If it is true that during
Jefferson’s administration industrial and agricultural interests
clashed for the first time in America, I fail to see that the
President made any effort to favor agriculture at the expense of
industry.

When the end of his first term approached, Jefferson did not
need any coercion to remain in the saddle for another period
of four years. It had already been decided that Aaron Eurr
would not and could not again be a candidate, and George
Clinton was chosen as running mate of Jefferson. Never in the
history of the United States was an election so little contested :
Jefferson obtained one hundred sixty-two electoral votes while
his opponent could only muster fourteen. The Republican
Party had really become the National party and the President
had been able to achieve political unity.

CHAPTER II

PROTECTIVE IMPERIALISM AND TERRITORIAL
EXPANSION

The famous Inaugural Message of Jefferson gave more
space to questions of domestic politics than to foreign problems,
but it contained a clear definition of America’s attitude towards
Europe — a short and terse statement in which the President
reiterated the principles which had guided him when Secretary
of State. These were the same principles that underlay the
foreign policies of the United States from the early days of the
Revolution. They had already appeared in the Plan of Treaties
drawn up by Adams in 1776; they had been solemnly pro-
claimed by Washington in his Farewell Address ; and they still
direct to a large extent America’s attitude in her dealings with
foreign nations on the American continent as well as abroad.

These principles were presented by Jefferson as being essen-
tially the result of natural conditions for which the Americans
themselves were not responsible : “Kindly separated by nature
and a wide ocean from the exterminating havoc of one quarter
of the globe ; too high-minded to endure the degradations of
others; possessing a chosen country, with room enough for
our descendants to the hundredth and thousandth generation”,
there was only one course for the American people to follow :
“ commerce and honest friendship with all nations — entangling
alliances with none.”

Thanks to the Republican victory, America no longer had to
pay any attention to the political convulsions which were tear-
ing the vitals of the Old World. The American experiment no
longer depended on the issue of the French Revolution. The

PROTECTIVE IMPERIALISM 397

Argosy had weathered the storm; America had become the
sole arbiter of her destinies, she had become, Jefferson pro-
claimed, “a standing monument and example for the aim and
imitation of the people of other countries ; and I join "with you
in the hope and belief that they will see, from our example, that
a free government is of all others the most energetic ; that the
inquiry which has been excited among the mass of mankind
by our revolution and its consequences, will ameliorate the
condition of man over a great portion of the globe.”

Such a declaration should not be mistaken for a manifestation
of a missionary spirit by which Jefferson was never moved and
which was absolutely abhorrent to his nature. America was
not to engage in any crusade. She was not to preach a new
gospel of liberty to the oppressed peoples of the earth. She
had proclaimed no Declaration europeenne des droits de I’homme
et du citoyen, as the French Revolution had ambitiously done.
She was not sending overseas to the shackled nations a call to
throw off the yoke and liberate themselves. Such declarations
would have seemed to Jefferson idle and dangerous. Every
people had to work out their own salvation ; any attempt by
America to help and encourage them would only embroil her in
difficulties which would retard her own development. She
could best serve the cause of humanity by standing aloof and
simply existing as an example which others, if they had eyes to
see, could not fail sooner or later to imitate. It was essentially
the doctrine which has been so often expounded by the non-
interventionists every time America has been invited to coop-
erate with Europe.

This doctrine therefore was not the expression of a passing
mood; it constituted one of the fundamental principles of
Americanism and had a permanent value, because, as Montes-
quieu would have said, it was the result of “the nature of
things”, and not a deduction drawn from an a priori principle.
On the other hand, it contained a new and interesting affirma-

39S THOMAS JEFFERSON

tion of the unquestionable superiority of the American people
over all the peoples of the earth, not only morally but intellec-
tually ; and this was not forgotten either, for the “ high-minded-
ness ’ ’ of Jefferson was echoed and reflected more than a hundred
years later in the “too proud to fight” of Woodrow Wilson.
Taken in itself, this statement was no worse than so many state-
ments made in political speeches ; all peoples like to be told and
to believe that they are a chosen people. But it must be con-
fessed that Jefferson drew very dangerous conclusions from that
uniqueness of America’s position.

One of the earliest and frankest expressions of that naive and
almost unconscious imperialism appears in an unpublished let-
ter to Doctor Mitchell. After discussing every possible subject
under heaven, from frosts to mammoth bones and electiicity,
Jefferson concluded with this disquieting statement; “Nor
is it in physics alone that we shall be found to differ from the
other hemisphere. I strongly suspect that our geographical
peculiarities may caU for a different code of natural law to
govern relations with other nations from that which the con-
ditions of Europe have given rise to there.” ^

This idea was reiterated in a letter written to Short more
than a year later. In it Jefferson laid down the principle, the
moral foundation of American imperialism — a curious mixture
of common sense, practical idealism, and moralizing not to be
found perhaps in any other people, but more permanently
American than typically Jeffersonian. To any sort of arrange-
ment with Europe he was irreducibly opposed: “We have a
perfect horror at everything connecting ourselves with the
politics of Europe.” In order to protect America from the
wiles of the European diplomats, the best course was “in the
meantime, to wish to let every treaty we have drop off without
renewal. We call in our diplomatic missions, barely keeping
up those to the most important nations. There is a strong

* Jefferson Papers. Library of Congress, June 13, 1800.

PROTECTIVE IMPERIALISM 399

disposition in our countrymen to discontinue even these ; and
very possibly it may be done.” Jefieison admitted that the
neutral rights of the United States naight suffer ; they would
undoubtedly suffer temporarily, and one had to accept this as
an unavoidable evil. But it would be only temporary • “We
feel ourselves strong and daily growing stronger ... If we can
delay but for a few years the necessity of vindicating the laws
of nature on the ocean, we shall be the more sure of doing it
with effect. The day is within my time as well as yours , when
we may say by what laws other nations shall treat us on the sea.
And we will say it.” ^

Nor was this imperialism purely theoretical. It was suscep-
tible of immediate applications and it manifested itself openly
in a letter written to James Monroe a few weeks later. The
people of Virginia were most anxious to get rid of a band of male-
factors guilty of insurgency, conspiracy, and rebellion. Had
they been whites, the solution would have been easy enough, but
it happened that they were colored people and they could not
reasonably be sent to the northern boundary, or be provided
with land in the Western Territory. Could these undesirables
be pushed into the Spanish sphere of influence? To this
solution Jefferson was unequivocally opposed and for reasons
worth considering: “However our present situation may
restrain us within our own limits,” he wrote to Monroe, “it
is impossible not to look forward to distant times, when our
rapid multiplication will expand itself beyond those limits, and
cover the whole northern, if not the southern continent, with a
people speaking the same language, governed in similar forms,
and by similar laws ; nor can we contemplate either blot or
mixture on that surface.” *

Truly enough, Jefferson said at the beginning of the letter
that publication of his views might have an ill effect in more

'■ To W. Short, October 3, 1801. MemonaJ Edition, X, 2S8.

’ November 24, 1801 Ibid , X, 294

400

THOMAS JEFFERSON

than one quarter. I shall not even advance the theory that
Jefferson’s foreign policies constituted a systematic effort to
put such a program into effect. But that such aspirations and
ambitions existed in his mind and influenced him to a certain
extent cannot be denied, and they should not be overlooked in
any discussion of his attitude during the negotiations that led
to the purchase of Louisiana.

Many of Jefferson’s contemporaries, and not a few American
historians, have harshly criticized him for buying Louisiana
from France, when no clause in the Constitution authorized
the acquisition of new territory. On the French side, not only
historians but even Bonaparte’s brother considered that the
cession, without the previous consultation of the Chambers, of
a colony recently recovered by France was an act arbitrary and
unconstitutional. Both principals have been condemned and
praised by posterity, but there is no doubt that the full respon-
sibility for the transaction rests not upon the peoples of France
and America, but on the President of the United States and the
Premier Consul. It was remarkable that two great minds, so
divergent in their views and principles, should meet on a com-
mon ground instead of clashing. On neither side was it a
triumph of idealism, but of that enlightened self-interest which,
according to Jefferson, directs the actions of men as well as of
nations.

Nor were they entirely unsupported by the public opinion of
their respective countries. I have already indicated in a pre-
ceding book ^ that a friendly conspiracy seems to have been
organized in France in order to induce the First Consul, and
chiefly Talleyrand, to acquiesce in the cession. At any rate, it
appears from several letters of Volney that the Ideologists were
anxious to avoid an open conflict with the United States and,
at the same time, to promote a measure which, in their opinion,
would insure the growth and prosperity of the Republican

* “Volney et I’Am&ique.” Paris and Baltimore, 1923

PROTECTIVE IMPERIALISM

401

Promised Land. Volney, himself one of the “voyageurs” of
the Directory, had made a trip to the West and come back fully
convinced that France could never hope to develop an empire
in the Mississippi Valley. The few scattered French colonists
who remained isolated in the Middle West were condemned to
be gradually absorbed by the influx of American pioneers and
to disappear before the rising flood of American colonization.
The question of the lower valley of the Mississippi was different,
to be sure, but if the United States were thwarted in their
development, if they were hemmed in on every side by pow-
erful neighbors, the theory of Montesquieu that only small na-
tions could adopt the republican system of government would
seem vindicated. It was not only the fate of the United States
which was at stake, hut the fate of the doctrine of popular
government, and it was the duty of aU liberals to bend every
effort to make more secure the prosperity of America.

On the other hand, as we have already seen in previous
chapters, while Jefferson was satisfied to leave Louisiana in the
hands of Spain, at least temporarily, he had always watched for
a favorable opportunity to unite the Spanish colonies to the
main body of the United States. It was not so much desire of
expansion and imperialism as the conviction that colonies were
only pawns in the game of European politics ; that they could
change hands at any time according to the fortunes of war ; that
there existed consequently a permanent danger of seeing France
recover some day her former colonies or, still worse, to have
them fall into the hands of the British. With England, or
possibly France, on the northern border, in the Floridas, on
the Gulf, and in the valley of the Mississippi, the old dream
of European domination of the North American continent
would revive. The United States would be placed in the
same position as the old colonies with reference to France.
A clash could not be avoided; the issue would have to be
fought out, until one of the adversaries should remain in

402 THOMASJEFFERSON

full and undisputed possession of the whole northern part of the
New World.

Although the Treaty of San Ildefonso, by which France was
to recover and occupy Louisiana at the first favorable oppor-
tunity, was intended to remain secret, rumors that some deal
had been concluded greatly disturbed the American Govern-
ment. As early as March, i8oi, Rufus King had been informed
in London that such a cession was contemplated and learned
that General Collot intended to leave for Louisiana with a
considerable number of followers. On June i, King called his
Government’s attention to the fact that the cession of Louisiana
“might enable France to extend her influence, and perhaps her
dominion, up the Mississippi ; and through the Lakes even up
to Canada.” The information caused great concern to the
British Government, and Lord Hawkesbury had acquainted
the American minister with the rumors. At that time. King,
who was evidently familiar with the views of Jefferson on the
matter, had answered by quoting Montesquieu that “it is
happy for trading powers, that God has permitted Turks and
Spaniards to be in the world, since of all nations they are the
most proper to possess a great empire with insignificance,”
The purport of this quotation being, he wrote, that, “we are
contented that the Floridas remain in the hands of Spain, but
should not be willing to see them transferred, except to our-
selves,” It was a double-edged answer, since it set at nil any
hope the British might have had of occupying Louisiana and
the Floridas; and at the same time it constituted a very
accurate statement of the position maintained by Jefferson
when Secretary of State in aU his dealings pertaining to the
Spanish colonies.

This policy was clearly defined in the general observations
communicated by the President to Charles Pinckney, minister
in Madrid (June 9, 1801) and in the instructions given to
Livingston, hastening his departure for France (September 28,

PROTECTIVE IMPERIALISM 403

1801). Jefferson did not know yet what part of the Spanish
colonies was to be ceded to France and was more preoccupied
with the eventuality of the cession of the Floridas. The solu-
tion preferred for the present was clearly the status quo. Should
the cession have irrevocably taken place, the rights to the
navigation of the Mississippi were to be safeguarded, and if
possible France should be induced “ to make over to the United
States the Floridas, if included in the cession to her from Spain,
or at least West Florida, through which several of our rivers
(particularly the important river Mobile) empty themselves
into the sea.” Finally, if the cession had never been con-
templated, Livingston was instructed to induce France “to
favor experiments on the part of the United States, for obtain-
ing from Spain the cession in view.”

The die was cast ; for the first time the United States took
the position that the time had come for them to control the
territory extending between their States and the Gulf of Mexico,
and to insure the peaceful and vmquestioned rights of naviga-
tion on the Mississippi. From the point of view of interna-
tional law or droit des gens, Madison reiterated the doctrine of
Jefferson, that it was a natural law that the States should have
access to the sea ; and in this particular instance he hinted at
another principle — the application of which to the old terri-
tories of Europe would be far-reaching — namely that the
nation possessing a certain river was entitled also to the mouth
of the river. But this again was probably in his opinion one of
these “natural laws” which applied to America only. At the
end of November, Rufus King sent to Madison a copy of the
treaty between the Prince of Parma and Lucien Bonaparte,
signed at Madrid, March 31, 1801, and in December he had
the opportunity of mentioning the possibility of France paying
her debts by ceding Louisiana back to the United States, which
only brought the curt answer that “none but spendthrifts
satisfy their debts by selling their lands.”

404

THOMAS JEFFERSON

Livingston, in a letter to Rufus King, took the view that the
cession would be disastrous not only to the United States but
to Spain and England, since the French would not fail to con-
tract alliance with the Indians and to renew relations with “ the
peasantry of Canada”, rendering the possessions of Britain
very precarious. He could only hope that King would do his
utmost to “ induce the British ministry to throw all the obstacles
in their power in the way of a final settlement of this business,
if it is not already too late.”

The British ministry refused to take the hint. Unwelcome
as the passing of Louisiana into French hands might be con-
sidered they were not disposed to endanger the success of the
negotiations shortly to be begun at Amiens, and Rufus King
was told that the subject would not even be mentioned by
Lord Hawkesbury.^ Evidently England never intended to
draw the chestnuts out of the fire for the sole benefit of the
United States, and Livingston alone was left to face the situ-
ation. The letter he wrote on his own initiative, unable as he
was to consult the home government, was somewhat blunt in
tone. He called attention to the fact that the arrival in Louisi-
ana or Florida of a large body of French troops could not fail
to alarm the people of the Western Territory. He conceded
that no protest could be made under the sixth article of the
Treaty of 1778, since it had been superseded by the agreement
of September 30, 1800; but he maintained that even in the
absence of a formal treaty the clause expressed a very desirable
policy, that at least the United States wished to know exactly
the boundaries of the territory ceded by Spain. At the same
time, he discreetly added that “ the government of the United
States desired to be informed how far it would be practicable
to miike such arrangements between their respective govern-
ments as would, at the same time, aid the financial operations
of France, and remove, by a strong and natural boundary,

1 King tp the SerTptary of State, January i, 1802

PROTECTIVE IMPERIALISM 405

all future causes of discontent between her and the United
States.”

These difierent reports, and particularly Livingston’s letter
to King, of December 30, created some perturbation in the
mind of Jefferson, and on March 16, Madison wrote the Ameri-
can minister in Paris “that too much circumspection could not
be employed.” The great danger was that any sort of a com-
bination with Great Britain would have to be paid later in kind
or in territory. While Madison sent recommendations to
Pinckney and to Livingston, the clear wish of Jefferson was to
keep out England as much as possible. It was at that time that
the President decided to take a hand directly in the negoti-
ations. At the beginning of April, 1802, Du Pont de Nemours
had written Jefferson that political as well as commercial con-
siderations made it imperative for him to go to France for a
short visit. Jefferson saw at once a possibility to use Du Pont
as in the past he had employed Lafayette, and asked him to
come to Washington to become acquainted “with certain
matters that could not be committed to paper.” ^

Very significantly he added : “I believe that the destinies of
great countries depend upon it, such is the crisis now existing.”
As Du Pont answered that he could not possibly see the Presi-
dent before sailing, Jefferson decided to explain his point of view
fully in a long letter and at the same time he expressed himself
even more forcibly in a letter to Livingston which he asked Du
Pont to read before sealing it.

The two letters complete and explain each other. First of
all, Jefferson rejected as a very imperfect solution the granting
free access to the sea to the territories situated on the left bank
of the Mississippi. He bluntly declared that although America
had a more natural and instinctive friendship for France than
for any other nation, it was quite certain that the national
characteristics of the two peoples were so divergent that they

'■ Jefferson Papers Library of Congress, April 21, r8o2.

4o6 THOMASJEFFERSON

could not live peacefully side by side for any length of time.
Even the cession by France of the Floridas and New Orleans
would be only a palliative which might delay but not suppress
the unavoidable conflict.^ The only solution was for France
to give up entirely the rights she had acquired under the Treaty
of San Ildefonso and to return to the status quo. Any attempt
by Bonaparte to send soldiers to Louisiana would be considered
as a casus belli, and the President wrote significantly : “Peace
and abstinence from European interference are our objects, and
so will continue while the present order of things in America
remains uninterrupted.” If, on the other hand, France insisted
upon taking possession of Louisiana, it was the declared inten-
tion of Jefferson to come to an agreement with England, then to
launch an expedition against New Orleans, to occupy the
territory claimed by France, so as to prevent any new European
nation from setting foot on the continent. That this policy
of non-colonization should apply to South America as well as
to the northern continent was evidently in the mmd of the
President, since he declared that after the annihilation of the
French fleet, two nations — America and Great Britain —
would rule the sea, and the two continents would be prac-
tically “ appropriated by them.”

The threat was so formidable that Du Pont refused to believe
that it was seriously meant. He saw at once that if such
representations were made to the First Consul, even with
proper diplomatic precautions, they would be looked upon by
him as a challenge that could not be ignored. “ Give up that
country, or we shall take it”, is not at aU persuasive. “We
will defend it”, is the answer that comes naturally to any man.
Furthermore, the old Physiocrat predicted that if the United
States ever followed such a policy, they would lose their pres-
tige as a democratic and peaceful nation. Jefferson would thus
play into the hands of the militaristic faction which ambitioned

' Jefferson Papers Library of Congress, April sj) 1802.

PROTECTIVE IMPERIALISM 407

the conquest of Mexico ; if, on the contrary, Mexico were to be
emancipated, it might become a dangerous neighbor for the
United States. He consequently urged Jefierson to accept what
he considered as a much more sensible program, namely a
compromise which would insure free access to the sea to “the
territories of the Cumberland, the Wabash and both banks of
the Ohio.” Finally he warned the President against entering
into such an alliance with England, since England would never
permit the United States to become a naval power of first
importance. If, however, the United States insisted on having
a free hand in the South, was it not possible, in view of the
impending war between France and England, 1o permit France
to recover Canada instead of Louisiana, and to teU Bonaparte
“ Give us Louisiana and at the first opportunity we shall restore
Canada to you”?

Even if that were refused, if nothing could remove Jefferson’s
objection to the establishment of a French colony on the north-
ern continent, there was still a possibility of giving satisfaction
to both parties concerned without unduly irritating the na-
tional pride of either. This was simply for America to buy
from France her claim on the Southern territory. True to his
training and doctrine, Du Pont had devised a commercial solu-
tion to a political problem. The question of Louisiana was to
be treated as a business, with a political background to be sure,
but essentially on business terms.

The answer of Jefferson has unfortunately disappeared and
was probably destroyed by Du Pont; but another letter of
the old Physiocrat permits us to reconstruct its contents.
Jefferson contended that the United States had no money and
could not afford to pay any important amount for such a pur-
chase. To which Du Pont answered that purchasing would be
infinitely more economical than going to war :

The sum offered and accepted will not exclude any compensation
for aU or part of the sum which might be paid to you under the

4 o8 THOMASJEFFERSON

treaty. To agree on the price is the important thing. To arrange
for the forms of payment, to charge against it legitimate reductions
is only a secondary matter, which will take care of itself. All the
rest of your instructions is easy to follow, and I shall follow them
exactly.

Then proving himself to be as good a prophet as a philosopher
Du Pont added that Bonaparte would be more attracted by a
frank and complete proposal than by a compromise : “I hope
it will succeed because Bonaparte is a man of genius, and his
character is much above ordinary ideas.” ^

It is not entirely to the credit of Jefferson that, when he was
thus declaring to Du Pont that the United States could not
afford to negotiate on such a basis, Madison, on May i, 1802,
was writing to Livingston, asking him to ascertain precisely
the price at which the Floridas, “if included in the cession would
be yielded to the United States.”

The whole story of the negotiations as it appears in the
Jefferson papers and in the documents published in the Annals
of Congress would be worth retelling in detail. The evasions of
the French minister Talleyrand, the reticences of the Spanish
ambassador as to the true extent of the cession, the attempts of
Rufus King to determine the British Government to throw their
influence on the side of the United States, the blundering efforts
of Livingston to place the case of his Government before the eyes
of Bonaparte, form one of the most complicated and fascinating
diplomatic mazes in which the inexperienced and not highly
skillful agents of the United States tried to find their way.
Livingston, who thought himself very adroit, was particularly
unfelicitous in his tone. The conclusion of the memoir he
wrote on August 10 and had printed for distribution to the
French Government may give an idea of his style :

In reasoning upon this subject, I have confined myself to such
observations as obviously presented themselves, without seeking

1 May la, 1S02. Manuscript, Library of Congress,

PROTECTIVE IMPERIALISM

409

any of those subtleties which may serve to mislead the judgment.
I have candidly exposed the plainest facts, in the simplest language.
If ever they are opposed, it will be by a contrary course. Eloquence
and sophistry may reply to them and may obscure them ; but time
and experience will evince their truth.

Such a language may have seemed to the American minister
candid and honest, but addressed to Bonaparte and Talleyrand
it was very undiplomatic, to say the least. One cannot help
feeling, on reading the documents, that had Livingston wished
to break off negotiations he would not have expressed himself
otherwise, and it is difficult to share the opinion of Henry
Adams, who claimed for the American minister most of the
credit for bringing the negotiations to a successful conclusion.

By the end of the summer 1802, it appeared that, before going
any further, France intended to take possession of Louisiana,
and Du Pont knew only too well that such a step would cause
an irresistible outburst of public opinion in the United States.
He kept in constant touch with Livingston, giving counsels of
moderation and patience. He even proposed the project of a
treaty which in his opinion would give temporary satisfaction
to the United States while being acceptable to France. This
plan included the cession of New Orleans and the Floridas,
reserving for French vessels the same treatment as for American
shipping ; France to keep aU the territories on the right bank of
the Mississippi, but the navigation of the river to be free to
both nations. Finally the United States were to pay the sum
of six million dollars for the territories described in the first
article.^

In the meantime things were moving fast in America. The
suspension of the right of deposit by the Spanish authorities
was taxing the none too strong endurance of the inhabitants
of the western territory, and the war party was making great

' Jefferson Papers. Library of Congress. Du Pont de Nemours to Jegetson, October
4, 1803.

410

THOMAS JEFFERSON

progress. Madison wrote on November 27, 1802, that should
the Spanish intendant “prove as obstinate as he has been
ignorant or wicked, nothing can temperate the irritation and
indignation of the Western country, but a persuasion that the
energy of their own government will obtain from the justice of
that of Spain the most ample redress.” ^

In his message to Congress read on December 15, the Presi-
dent included a short paragraph pregnant with significance :

The cession of the Spanish province of Louisiana to France, which
took place in the course of the late war, if carried into effect, makes a
change in the aspect of our foreign relations which will doubtless
have just weight in any deliberation of the Legislature connected
with that subject.

This sentence could have only one meaning : that if France
took possession of Louisiana, appropriations would be in order
to prevent her from establishing herself permanently in the
territory. It was a direct threat of war. The President had
apparently given up any hope of reaching an agreement and
was yielding to the war party.

On December 17 it was, on motion of Randolph ;

Resolved, That the President of the United States be requested
to cause to be laid before this house such papers as are in the posses-
sion of the Department of State as relate to the violation on the part
of Spain, of the Treaty of Friendship, Limits, and Navigation,
between the United States and the King of Spain.

Jefferson complied with this request on December 22, aver-
ring that he “was aware of the obligation to maintain, in all
cases, the rights of the nation, and to employ, for that purpose,
those just and honorable means which belong to the character
of the United States.” ®

There is no doubt that the President himself had lost patience
and that the United States were rapidly drifting towards overt

1 Annals of Congress, p. xosg.

^Ibid., p. 284,

PROTECTIVE IMPERIALISM 411

acts that could only have war as a consequence. On January
4, it was moved in the House that the President be requested
to communicate aU the information at his disposal on the
reported cession of Louisiana. Then quite unexpectedly, on
January ii, Jefferson sent to the Senate a message recom-
mending that James Monroe be appointed special envoy to
France with full powers, “jointly with Mr. Livingston to enter
into a treaty or convention with the First Consul of France, for
the purpose of enlarging and more effectually securing, our
rights and interests in the river Mississippi, and in the territories
eastward thereof.” The next day, the House, on recommen-
dation of a committee wliich presented a lengthy report, voted
an appropriation of “two million dollars to defray the expenses
which may be incurred in relation to the intercourse between
the United States and foreign nations.”

The sudden change in Jefferson’s attitude can largely be
attributed to the fact that, between December 15 and January
II, he had received a letter sent from Paris by Du Pont de
Nemours on October 4,^^ submitting a tentative plan for a treaty
and discountmg the pessimistic reports of Livingston. There is
not the slightest doubt that the President was much impressed
by Du Font’s letter. On January 18, Madison wrote to
Pinckney :

In order to draw the French government into the measure, a sum
of money will be made part of our propositions. . . . From a letter
received by the President from a respectable person, it is inferred,
with probability that the French government is not averse to treat
on those grounds ; and that such a disposition must be strengthened
by circumstances of the present moment.*

Finally Jefferson himself wrote to Du Pont that his letter had
been received with particular satisfaction, because while it
held up terms that could not be entirely yielded, “it proposed

* Je£Eerson Papers. Library of Congress, marked received December 31.

® Annals of Congress. Appendix, p. 1065.

412

THOMAS JEFFERSON

such as a mutual spirit of accommodation and sacrifice may
bring to some point of union.” ^

The President indicated, however, that the action of Spain
in suspending the rights of deposit had rendered imperative an
immediate settlement-. “Our circumstances are so imperious
as to admit of no delay as to our course ; and the use of the
Mississippi so indispensahle, that we cannot hesitate one
moment to hazard our existence for its maintainance.” Despite
this more conciliatory tone, the President did not recede from
the position he had taken previously with Du Pont. He
repeated that the country was in no position to offer such a sum
as mentioned by Mr. Du Pont (six million dollars) in order to
insure the purchase of the said territory.

In this, Jefferson was to some extent guilty of double-dealing
with his friend, or at least of not laying all his cards on the table.
The instructions given to Monroe and Livingston on March 2,
1803, specified that “should a greater sum (than two million
dollars) be made an ultimatum on the part of France, the
President has made up his mind to go as far as fifty millions of
livres totirmis, rather than to lose the main object.” Inciden-
tally, this passage explains how Monroe and Livingston could
feel authorized to accept the proposal to purchase the whole
territory for sixty million francs. They were not so bold as is
commonly supposed, since they were empowered by the Presi-
dent to go as far as fifty million for part only of Louisiana.
Whether Jefferson had the constitutional right to promise such
a sum without formal approval of Congress is quite another
matter. It is only fair, however, to recall here that, due to
the difficulty of communicating between Washington and Paris
and the urgency of the situation, it was an absolute necessity
to give considerable leeway to the plenipotentiaries and to
provide for every possible emergency. But it must also be
remembered that had not Jefferson taken at that precise time
‘ Jefferson Papers. Library of Congress, February i, 1803.

PROTECTIVE IMPERIALISM

413

the responsibility of engaging the resources of the United States,
neither Livingston nor Monroe would have felt authorized to
sign a transaction involving six times the sum voted by the
House of Representatives. The blame or praise, whatever it
maybe, must in final analysis fall entuely on Jefferson.

It is not without some interest to notice here that Livingston
was entirely unaware of the value of Du Pont de Nemours’
plan. Unable to pin down Talleyrand or Lebrun, he soon came
to the conclusion that it was impossible to treat and that he
might as well leave Paris. “I see very little use for a minister
here, where there is but one wiU ; and that will governed by no
object but personal security and personal ambition ; were it
left to my discretion, I should bring matters to some positive
issue, or leave them, which would be the only means of bringing
them to an issue.” ^ He maintained to the last minute that
Du Pont de Nemours had given the French government “with
the best intentions, ideas that we shall find hard to eradicate,
and impossible to yield to”,^ and on hearing that Monroe had
been appointed, following receipt of Du Pont’s letter, he
answered that he was much surprised that Du Pont should
talk “of the designs of this court, the price, &c., because he
must have derived these from his imagination only, as he had
no means of seeing anybody here that could give him the least
information.” ^

Who was the better informed of the two it is not easy
to decide. But by a curious coincidence, while Livingston was
writing this in Paris, the ink was hardly dry on the instructions
to Monroe which contained this striking paragraph: “It is
to be added that the overtures committed to you coincide in
great measure with the ideas of the person through whom the
letter of the President of April 30, 1802, was conveyed to Mr.

‘ To James Madison, January 24, 1803. Annals of Congress, p, 1066.

•To the Secretary of State, March 24, 1803. IKi., p. 1083.

• To Madison, March 3, 1803. Ibid., p. 1083.

414

THOMAS JEFFERSON

Livingston, and who is presumed to have gained some insight
into the present sentiments of the French Cabinet.” ^

The very same day Du Pont was able to write Jefferson that
he had several times seen Talleyrand and Lebrun and that the
French Government had decided to give every possible satis-
faction to the United States. On April 6, he added, without
giving any detail, that good progress had been made ; but that
he had not told everything to Livingston.

There is little doubt that the letter of Du Pont made Jeffer-
son delay any strong measure in the Mississippi Valley affair
and stayed the hand of the God of War. If negotiations had
been broken off at that point, it was the intention of the British
government “ to send an expedition to occupy New Orleans.” ^
What the consequences of such an action would have been can
easily be surmised.

The rest of the story lies outside of our province, since Jeffer-
son had nothing to do directly with it. Barb6-Marbois has told
the dramatic scene of Easter Sunday, April lo, 1803, when
Bonaparte called in two ministers and gave the first indication
that he considered the whole colony lost and that it might be
better to give it up entirely. The next morning the First
Consul requested Marbois to act as plenipotentiary and to see
Livingston at once. When Monroe arrived, a preliminary
understanding had been reached. The treaty was concluded
on May 4 and signed four days later, although it was antedated
and marked April 30,

The question of deciding whether Jefferson had foreseen the
possibility of acquiring the whole territory of Louisiana and had
given to Monroe instructions to that effect has provided his
biographers, whether friendly or unfriendly, with a nice bone
to pick. It seems here that a distinction must be established
between the wishes of the President and what he considered

‘ March 2, 1803. Anaals of Congress, p. 1098.

* King to Livingston, May 7, 1803. IMd., p. 1803,

PROTECTIVE IMPERIALISM

41s

within the range of actual possibilities. Frora his letters to
Lafayette and Du Pont de Nemours, it is easily perceived that
he was unequivocally opposed to the reinstatement of France
on any part of the continent. On this point he never varied.
On the other hand, he had soon become convinced that France
would never relinquish such an enormous territory without a
compensation that the United States could not afford to pay.
He limited his plans very soon to the acquisition of the two
Floridas, which he supposed had been made part of the trans-
action, so as to give the United States access to the Gulf, while
taking a strong position on the Mississippi River. In his letter
to Du Pont de Nemours dated February i, 1803, he reiterated
that the United States wanted and needed the Floridas, that
“whatever power, other than ourselves, holds the country east
of the Mississippi, becomes our natural enemy.” But further
he did not go. On February 27, 1803, he wrote to Governor
Harrison a letter which seems to settle the question : “We
bend our whole views to the purchase and settlement of the
country on the Mississippi, from its mouth to its northern re-
gions, that we may be able to present as strong a front on our
western as on our eastern border, and plant on the Mississippi
itself the means of its own defence.” As for the Indians, they
were either “ to be incorporated with us as citizens of the United
States, or removed beyond the Mississippi.” Finally the letter
written on July 29 to Livingston and Monroe is as definite a
statement as can be desired and ought to set the controversy
at rest ;

When these (your instructions and commission) were made out,
the object of the most sanguine was limited to the establishment
of the Mississippi as our boundary. It was not presumed, that more
could be sought by the United States, either with a chance of success,
or perhaps without being suspected of a greedy ambition, than the
island of New Orleans and the two Floridas. . . , Nor was it to
be supposed that in case the French government should be willing to

4i6 THOMAS JEFFERSON

part with, more than the territory on our side of the Mississippi, an
arrangement with Spain for restoring the territory on the other side,
would not be preferred to a sale of it to the United States. . . . The
effect of such considerations was diminished by no information, or
just presumptions whatever.^

Whatever may have been Jefferson’s satisfaction on hearing
the news, he did not write himself to the commissioners to con-
gratulate and thank them in the name of the nation. He was
not the man to make grand gestures. The Virginian could be as
self-restrained as any New Englander, as appears from a letter
to Horatio Gates in which the two envoys are mentioned ; “1
find our opposition very willing to pluck feathers from Monroe,
although not fond of sticking them into Livingston’s coat. The
truth is, both have a just proportion of merit; and were it
necessary or proper, it would be shown that each has rendered
peculiar services and of important value.” ® More than that
he did not say, and probably said very little more to Monroe,
his friend and “ eleve ” when he came back from France.

Congress had been called for October 17, to ratify the treaty ;
but before that date, Jefferson sent letters and questionnaires
all around in order to gather any possible information on the
limits, geography, resources and condition of the inhabitants
of the newly acquired territory. In a letter to Breckenridge
(August 12, 1803), he expressed himself more freely than to any
other correspondent. First of all he admitted that he was
somewhat disappointed at having being unable to secure the
Floridas. But it was only a delayed opportunity; sooner
or later Spain would engage in some war, and the realistic
politician added: “If we push them strongly with one hand,
holding out a price in the other, we shall certainly obtain the
Floridas, and all in good time.” For the present, the United
States, without claiming possession of the Spanish territories,
would act pretty freely: “In the meantime, without waiting
■ Annals of Congress, p 1167 ’July 11,1803 Memorial Edition, X, 402.

PROTECTIVE IMPERIALISM

417

for permission, we shall enter into the exercise of the natural
right we have always insisted on with having a right of innocent
passage through them to the ocean. We shall prepare her
to see us practice on this, and she will not oppose it by
force.”

He had already heard many objections to the treaty ; of all
of them he disposed summarily. He did not take seriously the
danger mentioned by the Federalists of seeing a fringe of States,
different in interest from the original States, form along the
Mississippi and threaten the homogeneity of the Union. If it
came to the worst, it would be better for the United States
to have as neighbors along the western border a Federation of
States inhabited by a people of the same blood than a Spanish
or French dominion. Then Jefferson prophetically outlined the
development of the West as he foresaw it. The inhabited part
of Louisiana was to become a new State as soon as possible.
Above Pointe Couple, the best procedure was probably to move
the Indians across the river and to fill the vacant territories
with white colonists. “When we shall be full on this side, we
may lay off a range of States on the western bank from the head
to the mouth, and so, range after range, advancing compactly
as we multiply.”

As to the constitutionality of the purchase, he admitted there
was no article of the Constitution authorizing the holding of
foreign territory, and still less contemplating the incorporation
of foreign nations into the Union. “The executives, in seizing
the fugitive occurrence which so much advances the good of their
country, have done an act beyond the Constitution.” They
were justified in doing it, however, just as much as a guardian
has the right to invest money for his ward in purchasing an
adjacent territory and saying to him when of age : “I did this
for your good ; I pretend to no right to bind you ; you may
disavow me, and I must get out of the scrape as I can : I thought
it my duty to risk myself for you.” This is another instance

4x8 THOMASJEFFERSON

when Jefferson the lawyer discarded what he called “meta-
physical subtleties” to look squarely at the facts and to do his
duty as he saw it, “ as a faithful servant.”

The third annual message of the President was read before
Congress on October 17. Written in simple language like all
the State papers of Jefferson, it contained a graceful word for
“the enlightened government of France”, and pointed out
soberly the advantages that would accrue to the United States
from the purchase ;

While the property and sovereignty of the Mississippi and its
waters secure an independent outlet for the produce of the western
States, and an uncontrolled navigation through their whole course,
free from collision with other powers and the dangers to our peace
from that source, the fertility of the country, its climate and extent,
promise in due season important aids to our treasury, an ample
provision for our posterity, and a wide-spread field for the blessings
of freedom and equal laws.

The President avoided any specific recommendation on the
measures to be adopted to incorporate into the Union the
recently acquired territories, resting on the wisdom of Congress
to determine the “measures which may be necessary for the
immediate occupation and temporary government of the
country; for rendering the change of government a blessing
to our newly adopted brethren ; for securing to them the rights
of conscience and of property; for confirming to the Indian
inhabitants their occupancy and self-government.” The
Senate ratified the treaty after a two-day discussion, the mem-
bers voting strictly on party lines. It came before the House
on the twenty-second. The discussion was hot and more pro-
longed; doubts as to the French title to the purchase were
raised; doubts as to the constitutionality of the measure.
The treaty proper was ratified on October 25, and on November
3 acts were passed authorizing the issue of bonds in order to
pay France.

PROTECTIVE IMPERIALISM 419

A letter of Jefferson to Livingston contains the epilogue of
the negotiations. It is another very interesting instance of the
way Jefferson knew how to handle men. Pichon, the French
minister, had been instructed by his Government to secure a
clause to the ratification providing “against any failure in time
or other circumstances of execution on the part of the United
States.” Jefferson took the matter in hand himself and demon-
strated to Pichon that in case the French Government insisted
upon such a proviso, the United States would insert a similar
clause of protestation “leaving the matter where it stood
before,” He insisted that it was to throw on the good faith of
both nations a doubt most unpleasant to an honest man to
entertain, and concluded that he had “more confidence in the
word of the First Consul than in all the parchment we could
sign.” What could the Frenchman do except to bow politely
and acquiesce, and “hke an able and honest minister (which he
is in the highest degree) he undertook to do what he knew his
employers would do themselves, were they spectators of aU
existing circumstances, and exchange the ratifications purely
and simply.” “So,” concluded Jefferson, “this instrument
goes to the world as an evidence of the candor and confidence
of the nations in each other, which wOl have the best effects.”

A last point remained to be settled. It was suspected that
Spain had entered a formal protest against the whole trans-
action, “since the First Consul had broken a solemn promise
not to alienate the country to any nation.” On that point
Jeft'erson refused to express any opinion ; “We answered that
these were questions between France and Spain which they
must settle together ; that we derived our title from the First
Consul and did not doubt his guarantee of it.” Meanwhile
measures were provided to take formal possession from Laussat
after he should have received the territory from Spain. “If he
is not so disposed we shall take possession and it will rest with
the Government of France, by adopting the act as their own,

420 THOMASJEFFERSON

then to settle the latter with Spain.” ^ In order to provide
for any eventuality, the governor of the Mississippi was ordered
to move down with General Wilkinson all his troops at hand
to take formal possession.

Thus the transaction fraught with so many dangers came to
what JeSerson called in a letter to Priestley (January 29, 1804)
“a happy denouement”, thanks “to a friendly and frank
development of causes and effects in our part and good sense
enough in Bonaparte to see that the train was unavoidable
and would change the face of the world.”

If Jefferson took liberties with the Constitution in the matter
of the purchase, he was equally broad-minded in his construc-
tion of the treaty. One of the articles provided that the inhab-
itants of the territories ceded by France “will be incorporated
into the Union and admitted as soon as possible according to the
principles of the Federal Constitution to the enjoyment of all
the advantages and immunities of the citizens of the United
States” (Article III). This was precisely what Jefferson was
firmly resolved not to do. Theoretically, and according to his
often expressed views on self-government, he should have taken
steps to admit immediately the newly acquired territory into
the Union and to allow the inhabitants to decide on a constitu-
tion. Practically, he considered that they were unfitted for
self-government and, although he did not formally declare it at
the time, he was convinced that self-government could not
succeed with a population mainly French and Spanish. The
letter he wrote on the subject to Du Pont de Nemours is almost
disarming m its naivete :

We are preparing a form of government for the Territory of
Louisiana. We shall make it as mild and free, as they are able to
bear, all persons residing there concurring in the information that
they were neither gratified, nor willing to exercise the rights of an
elective government. The immense swarm flocking thither of

* Memorial Edition, X, 424.

PROTECTIVE IMPERIALISM

421

Americans used to that exercise, will soon prepare them to receive
the necessary change.'

It was impossible to state more clearly that representative
government could not be granted to Louisiana as long as the
inhabitants remained essentially French. Only when checked
and controlled by the “immense swarm” of American pioneers
and colonists spreading all over the territory could they be
admitted to the immunities and advantages of American
citizens. This attitude of Jefferson, which seems in flagrant
contradiction with his theories, can astonish only those who see
in him a world prophet of the democratic faith ; while his only
ambition was to build an American democracy, on strictly
American principles, for the sole benefit of American citizens,
true heirs and continuators of the old Anglo-Saxon principles.

But his vision of a greater America extended even beyond
the limits of the Louisiana Purchase. In January, 1803, just
one week before Monroe’s appointment as special envoy to
Paris, he had sent a message to Congress to recommend that
a sum of twenty-five hundred dollars be appropriated to send
“an intelligent officer with a party of 10 or 12 men to explore
even to the Western Ocean and to bring back all possible infor-
mation on the Indian tribes, the fauna and flora of the region.”
The intelligent officer was Merriwether Lewis, private secretary
to the President, who was to engage in tliis “literary pursuit”
in a region claimed by Spain. It was calmly assumed, however,
that “ the expiring state of Spain’s interests there ’ ’ would render
such a voyage a matter of indifference to this nation. Jefferson
made the expedition his own concern; he drew up the most
detailed instructions for the mission. He even wrote for Lewis
“a letter of general credit” in his own hand and signed with
his name, by which the captain was authorized to draw on
“the Secretaries of State, the Treasury of War, and of the Navy
of the United States according as he might find his draughts

‘ Jefferson Papers. Library of Congress, January 19, 1804

422 THOMAS JEFFERSON

■would be most negotiable, for the purpose of obtaining money
or necessaries for himself and men.” ^ Practically unlimited
resources were placed at the disposal of the expedition. Jeffer-
son kept his former secretary minutely informed of the new
possibilities opened up by the negotiations with France, writing
him on July 4, 11, 15, November 16 and January 13. On
January 22, he sent new instructions: the United States had
“now become sovereigns of the country” Lewis was going to
explore ; it was no longer necessary to keep up the pretense of
a “literary pursuit”, and the President felt authorized in pro-
posing to the Indians the establishment of official connections,
and in declaring frankly to them that “they will ffnd in us
faithful friends and protectors.” So Jefferson was no longer
thinking of the Mississippi as the ultimate frontier of the
United States. He already foresaw the time when the Empire
would extend from the Atlantic to the Pacific.

Besides pro-viding the United States -with almost unlimited
possibilities of growth, the Louisiana Purchase had eliminated
the immediate danger of a conflict with France, and the chances
of remaining at peace with Europe had considerably increased.
“ I now see nothing which need interrupt the friendship between
France and this country,” wrote Jefferson to Cabanis. “We
do not despair of being always a peaceable nation. We think
that peaceable means may be devised of keeping nations in the
path of justice towards us, by making justice their interest, and
injuries to react on themselves. Our distance enables us to
pursue a course which the crowded situation of Europe renders
perhaps impracticable there.” ^

There remained, however, a danger point in the policies of
the British na'vy with regard to contraband. The United
States had now to make a strenuous effort to bring the British
to abandon their “right” to search neutral vessels on the high

July 4, 1803, Memorial Edition, X, 3 q8.

“July 12, 1803. IWd., X, 404.

PROTECTIVE IMPERIALISM

423

seas in order to impress British sailors found on those vessels,
and to use American ports as cruising stations. Not only was
this attitude of Great Britain contrary to justice but it was also
contraiy to these natural laws on which rested Jefferson’s system
of Americanism; above all, they were most obnoxious and
detrimental to American commerce, for “Thornton says they
watch our trade to prevent contraband. We say it is to plunder
under pretext of contraband.” ^

Meanwhile the President was receiving the most pessimistic
accoimts from Monroe, lost in the maze of European intrigues,
and almost losing faith in the future security of the United
States. One of his letters of the spring of 1804 had mentioned
the possibility of a dark plot against America. France and
England might forget their old differences and operate a recon-
ciliation at the expense of the United States ; they would form
a combination to divide between them the North American
continent, France repossessing Louisiana, while England would
reannex the United States to the British dominions. A mad
scheme if ever there was one, and it is very much to be doubted
that it was ever contemplated by any responsible Frenchman.
Jefferson’s confidence in the remoteness of the American con-
tinent was not disturbed for a minute by these alarming reports.
He excused Monroe on the ground that a person placed in
Europe was very apt to believe tlie old nations endowed with
limitless resources and power. Everything was possible, even
a return of the Bourbons ; but “that they and England joined,
could recover us to British dominion, is impossible. If things are
not so, then human reason is of no aid in conjecturmg the con-
duct of nations . ’ ’ Still the policy of watchful waiting was more
than ever in order. Every point of friction was to be eliminated,
one of the first measures being to accept the “Louisianais”
to fuU citizenship and thus bring to an end the patronage of
France. Another step was to enforce strictly the rule against

* To Madison, August 25, 1803. Memorial Edition, X, 412.

424

THOMAS JEFFERSON

British cruisers in American harbors, so that “each may see un-
equivocally what is unquestionably true, that we may be very
possibly driven into her scale by unjust conduct in the other.” ^

Thus was fixed not in theory but in practice a policy of
neutrality fraught with risks. The most apparent danger
was that both belligerents might turn against the United
States. But of that Jefferson was not afraid, as an alliance
between the two hereditary enemies seemed inconceivable. In
the meantime proper preparations were to be made to insure
the security of the American flag.

The message of October r?, 1803, contaiued an earnest appeal
to “complete neutrality.” Neutrality of fact the Government
was decided to observe, and most of all to view in a disinter-
ested way the carnage in Europe.

How desirable it must be, in a government like ours, to see its
citizens adopt individually the views, the interests and the conduct
which their country should pursue, divesting themselves of those
passions and partialities which tend to lessen useful friendships
and to embarrass and embroil us in the calamitous scenes of Europe.

Then came a passage which sounds strangely familiar to
those of us who have lived through the last fourteen years :

Confident, fellow citizens, that you will duly estimate the impor-
tance of neutral dispositions toward the observance of neutral conduct,
that you will be sensible how much it is our duty to look on the bloody
arena spread before us with commiseration indeed, but with no other
wish than to see it closed, I am persuaded you will cordially cherish
these dispositions in aU communications with your constituents.

A nation, neutral in speech and neutral in thought, w illin g to
intervene only to help the victims of the war or as an arbiter
between the belligerents, such was at that time the ideal of
Jefferson as it was to be for several years the ideal of Woodrow
Wilson, and to a large degree the permanent ideal of the United
States during their whole history.

^To James Madison, August is, 1804. Memorial Edition, XI, 45.

CHAPTER III

“SELF-PRESERVATION IS PARAMOUNT TO ALL LAW”

When, on the fourth of March, 1805, Jefferson began his
second term, he had a right to review with some complacency
the achievements of his first admmistration. To foreign
affairs he scarcely granted a short paragraph, but he pointed
out with great details the suppression of unnecessary offices,
the reduction of taxes, the fact that the Federal Government
was almost entirely supported by duties levied on importations,
so that “it may be the pleasure and pride of an American to ask,
what farmer, what mechanic, what laborer, ever sees a tax-
gatherer of the United States?” The Louisiana Purchase had
increased enormously the potential riches of the country and
removed a very dangerous source of conflict. The right bank
of the Mississippi was to be settled by “our own brethren and
children” and not by “strangers of another family,”

Of great hiterest was the long passage given to Indian affairs.
Jefferson’s sympathy for the red men dated from the early days
of his youth, when he had seen the chiefs stop at the house of
his father on their way to Williamsburg. He had handsomely
stood in defense of them in the “Notes on Virgmia.” Now he
was regarding them with the commiseration their history be-
gan to inspire :

Endowed with the faculties and the rights of men, breathing an
ardent love of liberty and independence, and occupying a country
which left them no desire but to be undisturbed, the stream of over-
flowing population directed itself on these shores, without power
to divert, or habits to contend against, they have been overwhelmed
by the current, or driven before it,

426 THOMAS JEFFERSON

This was certainly a very regrettable situation, but the idea of
questioning the right of an overflowing population to occupy
scarcely populated territories did not for a moment enter Jefler-
son’s mind. To deny such a right would have been not only
detrimental to the very existence of the United States, but also
a denial of the “right” of “our Saxons ancestors” to settle in
England. Furthermore, the President was confronted with a
certain set of facts and not with a theory. The territory of
which the Indians had so long enjoyed undisturbed possession
was growing narrower every day. With the recent acquisition
of Louisiana, it was to be foreseen that they would not be able
to roam freely much longer in the vast territories extending
west of the Mississippi. They were now “reduced within
limits too narrow for the hrmter’s state.” The only thing they
could do was to submit to new economic conditions, to settle
down and become farmers, and it was the duty of the govern-
ment “to encourage them to that industry which alone can
enable them to maintain their place in existence, and to prepare
them in time for that state of society, which to bodily comforts
adds the improvement of mind and morals.”

The President had no patience with

. . . the interested and crafty individuals among them who
inculcate a sanctimonious reverence for the customs of their ances-
tors ; that whatsoever they did, must be done through aU time ;
that reason is a false guide, and to advance under its counsel, in
their physical, moral, or political condition, is a perilous innovation ;
that their duty is to remain as their Creator made them.

The attitude of these reactionaries among the Indians gave
Jefferson an opportunity to hit at one stroke the medicine men
and the clergymen who were attacking him fiercely.

In short, my friends, among them is seen the action and counter-
action of good sense and bigotry ; they, too, have their anti-philos-
ophers, who find an interest in keeping things in their present state,
who dread reformation, and exert all their faculties to maintain the

SELF-PRESERVATION

427

ascendency of habit over the duty of improving our reason, and
obeying its mandates.

The New England and New York clergymen who had stood
with the Federalists knew exactly where they belonged.

But if the President was unwilling to let the attacks to which
he had been subjected pass entirely unnoticed, he maintained
at the same time that no official steps must be taken to repress
in any way freedom of speech and freedom of the press. In
more emphatic terms than ever before, he reasserted the funda-
mental doctrhie he had defended against all comers for more
than twenty-five years :

During this couise of administration, and in order to disturb it,
the artillery of the press has been levelled against ns, charged with
whatsoever its licentiousness could devise or dare. These abuses
of an institution so important to freedom and science, are deeply to
be regretted, inasmuch as they tend to lessen its usefulness, and to
sap its safety; they might, indeed, have been corrected by the
wholesome punishments reserved and provided by the laws of the
several States against falsehood and defamation ; but public duties,
more urgent press on the ti m e of public servants, and the offenders
have therefore been left to find their punishment in the public
indignation

Thus were the Callender and the Federalist pamphleteers
handed over to the public to be dealt with, according to the
merits of their cases.

The address ended with a new appeal to harmony, with the
hope that truth, reason and well-understood self-interest might
enlighten the last opponents of true republicanism. It ended
also with a sort of prayer which may or may not have expressed
the religious beliefs of Jefierson at the time :

I shall need the favor of that Being in whose hands we are, who
led our forefathers, as Israel of old, from their native land, and
planted them in a country flowing with all the necessaries and com-
forts of life; who has covered our infancy with his providence,

428 THOMAS JEFFERSON

and our riper years with his wisdom and power, and to whose good-
ness I ask you to join me in supplications.

Jefferson had not forgotten that twenty years before he had
proposed that the seal of the United States should represent
the Children of Israel led by a pillar of light. As much as the
Puritans he was convinced that the American people was a
chosen people, that they have been gifted with superior wisdom
and strength, and this belief was just as much part of his creed
of Americanism as it was the more openly expressed doctrine of
more recent presidents of the United States.

With these brilliant and reassuring prospects before his eyes,
Jefferson entered his second term. Little did he believe at
that time that the four years before him were to be the most
agitated and most distressing of his long career. The man
whose fondest hope was to “secure peace, friendship and appro-
bation of all nations” was to begin a series of police operations
against the Barbary pirates of the Mediterranean and was
confronted, at a time, with the possibility of a war with Spain,
a war with England and a war with France. His philosophical
toga was torn to shreds by the thorns strewn along the tortuous
paths of international relations. At home he had to use all his
ingenuity and resourcefulness to keep together disaffected ele-
ments in the Republican Party, to withstand the attacks
launched in Congress by John Randolph of Roanoke, the
impulsive, erratic and dangerous leader of the discontented
Republicans. The man who had framed the Kentucky
resolutions and had stood as the advocate of States rights was
reproached with using his influence with Congress to pass the
Embargo Act, “more arbitrary, more confiscatory” than any
measure ever proposed by the Federalists. The man who had
protested against the sedition bills had to repress the seditious
attempts of the former Vice President of the United States.
It seemed as if an evil genius had taken a malicious pleasure in
making every effort to test the President in every possible way,

SELF-PRESERVATION 429

and to confront him with the necessity of renouncing his most
cherished principles. Jefferson did not come out of the ordeal
without scars and deep wounds ; but whatever may have been
his deficiencies and his faults, whatever sins he may have com-
mitted, he kept his faith in the ultimate wisdom of public
opinion and never tried to suppress by coercion the criticism to
which he was subjected.

As a matter of fact, the roseate view of the situation presented
by Jefferson in his second Inaugural Address was hardly
warranted by facts. Even before the close of the first term,
Randolph, who had been the standard bearer of the Republicans
in the House, had shown signs of discontent. He had sup-
ported the “Remonstrance of the people of Louisiana”, pro-
testing that one of the essential provisions had been violated
and that they should be admitted at once to “all the rights,
advantages and hnmunities of citizens.” On the other hand,
Aaron Burr, even while remaming in ofiSce, had already paved
the way for the dark and romantic machinations which were to
cuhninate with his trial before Marshall at Richmond.

The story of Burr’s conspiracy deserves a special place among
American “causes celebres.” It has been told many times, and
very vividly, but only the pen of Alexandre Dumas could do
justice to it. Many efforts have been made to whitewash the
memory of the chief conspirator, to throw most of the odium on
Wilkinson and on Jefferson who, according to his enemies,
would have gone out of his way to obtain the condemnation of a
man who could not be proved guilty of any overt act, although
there is no doubt that he had originated some of the most
reprehensible schemes against the safety of his coimtry. But
Americans always had a foible for soldiers of fortune, for
adventurers who dreamed of conquering new empires ; for in
them they see the magnification of the frontier spirit
which for so long constituted one of the “piUars” of American
civilization.

430

THOMAS JEFFERSON

By an extraordinary trick of heredity, this adventurer, who
should have been a Spanish conquistador, this arch plotter who
had the insinuating ways of the Florentine, the tortuous and
complicated mind so often considered as a privilege of the
Europeans, was the great-grandson of Jonathan Edwards and
of pure New England descent. He had fought bravely and
enthusiastically in the Revolutionary War, he was a lawyer of
no mean achievement ; but his thirst for popularity, applause
and success was beyond imagination, and this Machiavellic
politician lacked in an extraordinary degree common sense and
political vision. Had he withdrawn from the run for the
presidency in time, had he gracefully accepted the second
rank in December, 1800, he would have had a great political
career before him. But to the last mmute he refused to say the
word that was expected from him ; he accepted without protest
the votes of the Federalists and was considered as a traitor to
his party even before he took office. As early as January,
1804, he had gone to Jefferson and, after complaining that the
President did not show him the same friendship as before, he
had offered to resign at once if he were appointed to some
foreign embassy. After Bmrr had left without obtaining any
definite answer, Jefferson put down on paper a complete accormt
of the conversation and dryly concluded :

I should here notice, that Colonel Burr must have thought that I
could swallow strong things in my own favor, when he founded his
acquiescence in the nomination as Vice-President, to his desire of
promoting my honor, the being with me ; whose company and con-
versation had always been fascinating with him etc.^

Disappointed in this respect, Aaron Burr turned his eyes
towards New York, where he had worked so successfully during
the preceding election. The post of governor happened to be
vacant, and in February Burr was chosen by the discontented

1 "Anas”, January 26, 1804.

SELF-PRESERVATION

431

Republicans of the State to run for governor. It seems quite
certain that, if he had been elected, the movement for secession
already strong in New England would have received a new
impetus and that a desperate effort would have been made to
shake off “the rule of Virginia.” When, after a savage cam-
paign marked by invectives, brawls and riots. Burr was finally
defeated, he could and did rightly attribute his failure to
Hamilton who, from the very beginning, opposed his candi-
dacy. A personal encounter was decided and the two adver-
saries met on the bank of the Hudson, pistol in hand, in a duel to
the death. It has always been said that Hamilton did not take
aim and fired first. Burr fired deliberately and Hamilton,
fatally wounded, fell to the ground, to die the next day.

Found guilty of murder by a grand jury, and in fact already
a fugitive from justice, Burr hid at first in Georgia and there
concocted the most extraordinary plan to effect a separation
of the western part of the United States with the help and
financial assistance of England. Although evidence was not
procurable at the time of his trial, there is no doubt that he
thought the scheme feasible; that back in Washington, and
when he was presiding over the impeachment proceedings of
Judge Chase, the Vice President of the United States was
prudently sounding the delegates of the western States, in-
gratiating himself to them and that the wildest dreams of empire
were haunting his feverish imagination.

As soon as the session was over, Colonel Burr started out for a
tour of the western States and, on an island of the Ohio, met by
chance the philosopher-planter Blennerhasset, the innocent
victim of his plots. Leaving Blennerhasset, Burr went to
Cincinnati, Frankfort, Nashville. He met Andrew Jackson,
the uncouth son of the frontier, and Wilkinson, the general in
charge of the western territory. After a visit to New Orleans,
where he was greatly elated by the discontent of the population,
he went back to Saint Louis to discuss the situation with

432

THOMAS JEFFERSON

Wilkinson. Whether he still adhered to the original plan of
separating the western from the eastern States is to a consider-
able degree doubtful. His immediate object seems rather to
have been to lead an expedition of adventurers against Mexico,
in case the war that was threatening between the United States
and Spain should break out. It must be admitted that the plan
in itself was not particularly objectionable to the Government,
but it soon appeared that this scheme too had to be given up.
After vainly attempting to secure assistance from the British
Government, Burr, changing from conqueror to farmer, under-
took to buy, with Blennerhasset, a grant of several hundred
thousand acres on the Washita River, in Northern Louisiana, in
order to establish there a model colony.

The rest of the story is well known. Rumors of a conspiracy
grew in the West without disturbing at first the security of the
Federal Government. Burr, summoned to appear before the
district attorney of Frankfort, surrendered himself, but was
twice discharged and continued his preparations for the settle-
ment of Washita. Jefferson did not move until he received
from Willcinson a confidential message purporting to be the
transcription of a ciphered letter sent by Burr. The President
was so alarmed that he issued at once a proclamation, warning
the people that a conspiracy had been discovered and directing
the arrests of the conspirators and the seizure of '‘aU vessels,
arms and military stores.” WiUdnson, eager to show his
loyalty to the Govermnent, arrested “without warrant”
several emissaries of Burr. One of them was released, but two,
B oilman and Swartwout, were sent out by sea to Baltimore
and thence to Washington, where they were kept in the military
barracks. In a special message to Congress, Jefferson apprised
the Senate and the House of the facts “touching an illegal
combination of private individuals against the peace and
safety of the Union, and a military expedition plaimed by them
against the territories of a power in amity with the United

SELF-PRESERVATION

433

States, with the measures pursued for suppressing the same.”
(January 22, 1807)

Shortly after Marshall, in Washington, had refused to indict
B oilman and Swartwout on the count of “levying war” against
the United States, Burr was finally arrested and taken under
military escort to Richmond, there to be delivered to the
civil authorities after Marshall had signed a special warrant
(March 26, 1S07). After long skirmishes between the prosecu-
tion and the defense, legal moves and countermoves. Burr was
indicted under two counts, — treason and high misdemeanor.
On the first charge the jury rendered a verdict to the effect that
“We of the jury say that Aaron Burr is not proved guilty under
this indictment by any evidence submitted to us ; we therefore
find him not guilty.”

This was a most unusual and illegal form of rendering a
verdict and the jury evidently intended to emphasize the fact
that the evidence submitted did not warrant a conviction,
although they reserved their opinion as to the real guilt of
Colonel Burr. Marshall overruled objections to the form of
the verdict which threatened a reopening of the case and
decided that it would be recorded as “not guilty.” Burr was
soon recommitted on the second count and declared not guilty
by a second jury. Upon which a third charge was brought in by
the prosecution and Burr summoned to appear at the session of
the Circuit Court of the United States to be held at Chillicothe
in January, 1808. He never appeared and his bond was forfeited;
it is more than doubtful that he would have been convicted.

A serious discussion of the merits of the case would necessi-
tate a minute analysis of all the evidence placed before the jury
and cannot be undertaken here. Several attempts have been
made to rehabilitate Aaron Burr’s memory, although certain
facts are so patent that they cannot be overlooked by the most
indulgent biographers. It is a curious bend of the popular
mind that the greatness of the conspiracy seems an excuse and

434

THOMAS JEFFERSON

attenuation of the most evident guilt. There was something
apparently heroic in the ambition of that man who wanted to
carve for himself an empire in the wilderness and to plunder the
treasures of the mysterious Southwest. Then, by contrast, the
obstinacy of Jefferson in using every means in his power and in
the power of the Federal Government in order to obtain a con-
viction, has been represented as a display of pettiness unworthy
of the chief of a great nation. Nor is this tendency restricted
to the impulsive and emotional masses; it creeps into the
accounts of the trial given by the most judicial historians, and
I am not certaia that it is entirely absent from Beveridge’s
treatment of the Riclrmond proceedings.

Legally speaking, it is difficult to find fault with the findings
of Marshall, with the definitions he gave of “treason” and
“overt act”, with his sifting of the evidence and, except in one
or two cases, with his behavior during the trial. On the other
hand, Jefferson has been accused of having unduly interfered
by sending detailed instructions to the district attorney, by
coaching him on several occasions, and by attempting directly
and indirectly to arouse public opinion against a man who was
on trial for his life, but who finally could not he convicted on
any count. After such an interval of time, it is easy to find
fault with the conduct of the Executive, and it cannot be denied
that he acted in a very high-handed manner, condoned acts
which were technically illegal and maintained without sufficient
proofs of Burr’s guilt that there was not “ a candid man in the
United States who did not believe some one, if not aU, of these
overt acts to have taken place.” ^

On the other hipid, if we try to place ourselves in the atmos-
phere of the time, it is equally easy to find explanations that to
a large extent justify Jefferson’s attitude. It must be remem-
bered that the President was not unaware of Burr’s intention
“to form a coalition of the five eastern States, with New York

’ To W. B. Giles, April 20 , 1807 Memorial Edition, XI, 187

SELF-PRESERVATION 435

and New Jersey, under the new appellation of the Seven
Eastern States.” ^ If Burr’s machination with the English
minister to effect a separation of the western States were still
unknown, there was little doubt about his plans. All of Burr’s
ambitious schemes failed miserably, but it is perfectly natural
that the Government should have been seriously alarmed at
the time. They did not know of Wilkinson’s shameful deals
with Spain, but they had every reason to believe that a man
who had already plotted a secession of the western territory
and happened to be in charge of that territory and in command
of the Federal anny was scarcely to be depended upon in an
emergency. For years the West had been very restive, New
Orleans was full of discontented Creoles, and if war had not been
officially declared with both England and Spain, it was felt that
it could break out at any time. None of these considerations
could be brought out before the jury, but they amply warranted
some action of the Executive. The first step taken by Jefferson
was to warn the people of the existence of a conspiracy. If we
remember again that Aaron Burr was at that time roaming at
wiU in a pait of the coxmtry sparsely settled, where he counted
many friends, where communications with Washington were
slow and rare, it is difficult to see how the President could have
done less.

After the conspirators were arrested the situation changed
entirely. They had been delivered to the civil authorities,
they were to appear before a regular court and given trial by
jury ; they no longer constituted a public danger. It must be
admitted that Jefferson himself declared to his French friends,
Lafayette arid Eu Pont de Nemours, that Burr never had a
chance to succeed and “that the man who could expect to
effect this, with American material must be a fit subject for
Bedlam.” ® This is hard to reconcile with the statement

' To Gideon Granger, March 9, 1814 Memorial Edition, XIV, 113.

^ To Lafayette, July 14, 1807 Ibid , XI,

438 THOMASJEFFERSON

A year later, writing to Doctor James Brown about the
measures of repression taken by Wilkinson in New Orleans,
Jefferson presented what he considered a full justification of his
conduct :

I do wish to see these people get what they deserved ; and under
the maxim of the law itself, that inter arma silent leges, that in an
encampment expecting daily attack from a powerful enemy, self
preservation is paramount to all law. I expected that instead of
invoking the forms of the law, to cover traitors, all good citizens
would have concurred in securing them. Should we have ever
gained our Revolution, if we had bound our hands by manacles of the
law, not only in the beginning, but in any part of the revolutionary
conflict? ’

This was exactly the sort of reasoning that Jefferson had
opposed so strenuously when advanced by his political oppo-
nents. Apparently he had completely reversed his position
after getting in the saddle, which was very illogical and perhaps
very damnable, but also very human. He was now, to use the
vivid expression of a French statesman, “on the other side of
the barricade”, and he saw things m a different light. But if
this episode can serve to illustrate the inconsistency of the
philosopher, it constitutes also a most striking refutation of the
accusations of Jacobinism so often launched against Jefferson ;
for only the Jacobin is perfectly consistent in all circumstances.
More than thirty years had elapsed since Jefferson had copied
the old maxim fiat justitia mat ccdum in his “Memorandum
book” and he was still wont to repeat it, but it had taken him
less than eight years of executive responsibility to make him
admit that democracy does not work in times of emergency. It
was a most dangerous admission, but one to be expected from a
man in whom still lived the rutliless spirit of the frontier.
Pioneer communities in which unrestricted and unlimited
democracy prevails are pitiless for the outlaw who endangers

' October 27, 1808. Memorial Edition, XII, 183.

SELF-PRESERVATION 439

the life of the group, and are not stopped by “legal subtleties.”
In Jefferson there was more of the pioneer than he himself
believed. For this very reason he was probably more com-
pletely and intensely an average American than if he had
“acted up” to the letter of the law in every circumstance.

This was by far the most dramatic of the internal difficulties
that Jefferson had to face during his second term. Burr’s
conspiracy obscured the attacks against Madison led by the
former spokesman of Jefferson’s party, John Randolph of
Roanoke. But already, when Burr’s trial was held in Rich-
mond, “circumstances which seriously threatened the peace of
the country” had made it a duty to convene Congress at an
earlier date than usual. Once again, as under the administra-
tions of Washington and Adams, foreign policies were to domi-
nate and direct domestic policies, and once again America was to
bear the penalty of ah neutrals who try to keep out of the war
in a world conflagration.

CHAPTER IV

“PEACE AND COMMERCE WITH EVERY NATION”

War is not always an nnmixed curse, at least for nations who
manage to remain neutral while the rest of the world is torn by
calamitous conflicts. Europe’s misfortime had been to some
extent America’s good fortune. With comparatively short
intermissions, France and England were engaged in a death
struggle from 1793 to 1815, and although Britannia ruled the
sea, the belligerents had to resort to neutral shipping. The
exports of the United States, which were valued at only nineteen
millions in 1791, reached ninety-four millions in 1802, and one
hundred eight millions in 1807. The imports followed approxi-
mately the same curve for the corresponding dates, jumping from
nineteen millions to seventy-five millions in 1802 and reaching
over one hundred thirty-eight millions in 1807. If the United
States had been permitted to pursue the policy outlined by
Jefferson in his messages, “to cultivate the friendship of the
belligerent nations by eveiy act of justice and of incessant
kindness” (October 17, 1803), “to carry a commercial mter-
course with every part of the dominions of a belligerent”
(January 17, 1806), a sort of commercial millennium would have
been attained and the prosperity of the United States would
have been boundless. But, at least at the beginning of the nine-
teenth century, neither the rights of neutrals nor international
law were observed by the belligerents, and neutrals were bound
to suffer as well as to profit by their privileged situation.

For his conduct of foreign affairs Jefferson has been severely
taken to task, not only by many of his contemporaries but by
several historians, one of the most formidable critics being

PEACE AND COMMERCE 441

Henry Adams. During his second administration, America
suffered deep humiliations which aroused the national spirit.
In many occasions war could have and perhaps should have
been declared ; the navy, which had been reduced to a minimum
under Gallatin’s policy of economy, could have been expanded
so as to enable the country to protect herself against foreign
insults. On matters concerning national honor and national
pride Americans alone are qualified to pass, and I can hold no
brief for Jefferson in the matter. Perhaps it would have
soothed the wormds inflicted to the amour-propre of the nation
if war had been declared against France, or England, or both,
and if America had taken part in the “bloody conflicts” of
Europe. It must be said, however, that one fails to see what
material advantages would have resulted for the cormtry ; in
this case, as in many others, Jefferson’s conduct seems to have
been directed by enlightened self-interest. He was most
unwillmg to favor and help in any way Napoleon’s ambitious
schemes by declaring war against England ; on the other hand,
the prospect of forming a de facto alliance with a coimtry which
on so many occasions had deliberately insulted the United
States and manifestly entertained feelings of scorn and distrust
toward the young republic was equally abhorrent to him.
Finally, it must not be forgotten that by keeping out of the
deadly conflict in which Europe was engaged, the United States
were able to lay the solid foimdations of an unparalleled
prosperity. While the young manhood of Europe perished on
the battlefields of Napoleon, the population of America grew by
leaps and bounds, passing from 5,300,000 in 1800 to 7,250,000
in 1810. While the farms and the factories of the Old World
were left abandoned, immense territories were put under
cultivation and new industries were developed to satisfy the
demands of consumers who could no longer import manufac-
tured products from England. The whole life of the nation was
quickened and the industrial revolution hastened.

442 THOMASJEFFERSON

Wlien, after Waterloo, Europe resuraed her peaceful pursuits,
America had freed herself of economic and financial dependence
from the Old World. She had become a rich, powerful and
self-supporting nation. She appeared to the impoverished
peoples of the earth as an economic as well as a political
Eldorado. Wliether the price she paid for it was too high is
a question which I may be permitted to leave for others to
decide.

In his second inaugural address, the President found it un-
necessary to state again the directing principles of his policies,
simply declaring that he had “acted up” to the declaration con-
tained in his first inaugural. Of foreign affairs he had little to
say, except to reiterate his coRviction that “ with nations, as well
as with individuals, our interests soundly calculated, will ever
be found inseparable from our moral duties.” Yet there was a
passing reference to possible difficulties. War sometimes could
not be avoided: “it might be procured by injustice by our-
selves, or by others”; and provision ought to be made in
advance for such emergencies, so as “to meet all the expenses
of any given year, without encroaching on the rights of future
generations, by burdening them with the debts of the past.”
The President foresaw that, with the rapid growth of the popu-
lation and the corresponding increase in revenue raised from
import taxes, it would be possible

To extinguish the native right of soil within our limits, to extend
those limits, and to apply such a surplus to our public debts, as
places at a short day their final redemption, and that redemption
once effected, the revenue thereby liberated may, by a just reparti-
tion among the states, and a corresponding amendement of the con-
stitution, be applied, in time of peace, to rivers, canals, roads, arts,
manufactures, education, and other great objects within each
State,

One may wonder whether at that time Jefferson realized the
possible consequences of such a system. We have not to seek

PEACE AND COMMERCE

443

very far for the exact “ source ” of these ideas ; they were taken
bodily from Hamilton’s report of manufactures. It was the
same proposal to distribute subsidies and bounties from the
Federal treasury, to encourage commerce and manufactures.
Apparently what was damnable and criminal under a Federal-
ist administration became praiseworthy under a Republican
regime.

As a matter of fact, even during Jefferson’s first term, some of
the resources of the Federal treasury had to be spent in warlike
activities. Jefferson had never been able to forget the deep
humiliation he had felt when, as a minister to the Court of
France, he had been forced to negotiate with the Barbary
pirates for the redemption of American prisoners. He had been
less than six months in office when he decided to answer the new
demands of the Barbary States by sending an American fleet to
protect American commerce in the Mediterranean. To this
incident he gave a large part of his first message (December 8,
i8oi), and the activities of the small squadron kept in Europe
for several years, in order to blockade the pirates in their har-
bors, was regularly mentioned in his subsequent messages.
The tone of some passages is well worth studying. His hope
to reduce “the Barbarians of Tripoli to the desire of peace on
proper terms by the sufferings of war” (November 8, 1804) ; his
determination to send to Europe additional forces, “to make
Tripoli sensible that they mistake their interest in choosing war
with us; and Tunis also, should she have declared war as
we expect and almost wish” (July 18, 1804) — all this reveals
a warlike Jefferson very different from the pacifist philosopher
he is supposed to have been in aU circumstances.

It was irritating enough to bear the insults of British and
French vessels to the American flag in order to keep the United
States out of a European war. To yield to the demands of a
band of pirates who could be cowed by energetic action with a
minimum of bloodshed and expenditure, would have been an

444 THOMAS JEFFERSON

insufferable disgrace. The Barbarians had to be beaten into
submission, and the European powers who did not seem to be
willing to emancipate themselves from that degrading tribute
could perhaps understand at the same time that there were
limits to the forbearance of the United States.

With reference to England the situation was entirely differ-
ent. The United States had no fleet able to cope with the
English fleet. The American coasts were unprotected and
the American harbors could be bombarded from the sea without
even being able to make a pretense of resisting. A large navy
could not be built in a day, and even if one had been impro-
vised, the odds would have been so uneven that many American
vessels would have gone down and many lives would have been
lost under the fire of the British frigates. Thus for practical
reasons as well as from philanthropic motives, Jefferson bent all
his efforts to the preservation of peace with the great countries
of Europe.

Hardly three weeks after the signature of the treaty through
which he gave up Louisiana, Bonaparte declared war against
England. When he received the news, Jefferson wrote a long
letter to Lord Buchan in which he defined his policy :

My hope of preserving peace for our country is not founded in the
greater principle of non-resistance under every wrong, but in the
belief that a just and friendly conduct on our part will procure
justice and friendship from others. In the existing contest, each
of the combatants will find an interest in our friendslup, I cannot
say we shall be unconcerned spectators of this combat. We feel
for human sufferings, and we wish the good of all. We shall look
on, therefore, with the sensations which these dispositions and the
events of the war will produce.^

Thus spoke Jefferson in July, 1803, and Woodrow Wilson,
who borrowed more than one page from the book of his prede-
cessor, expressed himself in almost the same words one hundred

1 Memorial Edition, X, 399.

PEACE AND COMMERCE 445

and eleven years later. Thus, also, would probably speak any
President of the United States should a new conflagration break
out to-morrow. This, to be sure, was no proclamation of
neutrality and none was needed at the time ; but had Jefferson
written one, he could scarcely have expressed himself more
forcibly than he did in a letter sent two days later to General
Horatio Gates : “We are friendly, cordially and conscientiously
friendly to England. We are not hostile to France. We will
be rigorously just and sincerely friendly to both.”

But this fine declaration did not make Jefferson forget the
immediate interests of the United States, for the preoccupation
uppermost in his mind at that time was to find out how the
European situation could be used to the best advantage of his
own country.

In signing the treaty France had refused to give any guaran-
tee as to the extent of the territory ceded under the Louisiana
Purchase. Whether the cession included West Florida, on the
occupation of which Jefferson had been so intent, was a matter
of doubt. This particular point had not been pressed during
the negotiations, France, according to the old maxim caveat
emptor, takuig the position that the question lay between the
United States and Spain, while the United States had never
abandoned the hope that they would be able to induce Bona-
parte to exert pressure on Madrid so as to enable the American
Government to make the most of the transaction. Soon after
the treaty was signed, the United States found themselves
enmeshed in one of the most complicated intrigues of European
diplomacy.

While Madison and Jefferson were negotiating in Washington
with the Spanish mmister Ynijo, Pinkney and later Monroe
negotiated in Madrid, sometimes at cross purposes but without
ever losing sight of the main object. Jefferson had renewed his
old contention that the United States were entitled to “all the
navigable waters, rivers, creeks, bays, and inlets lying within

446 THOMAS JEFFERSON

the United States, which empty into the Gulf of Mexico east of
the River Mississippi.” As Henry Adams remarked, this was
a most remarkable provision, as “no creeks, bays, or inlets lying
within the United States emptied into the Gulf.” ^ But if
Jefferson’s geography was faulty, his intent was perfectly clear,
and every opportunity was to be used to round out the perim-
eter of the United States. When in October, 1804, Monroe
reached Paris to push negotiations more vigorously, the plans
of the United States had crystallized. They had a beautiful
simplicity : to make Spain pay the claims resulting from the
shutting-up of the Mississippi by Morales, to take immediate
possession of Western Florida and to obtain the cession of
Eastern Florida.

With the details of the diplomatic maneuvers we are not
concerned here, but rather with the remarkable proposal made
by Jefferson to Madison during the summer of 1805. Spain
having declared war against England, the President, fearful of
being “left without an ally”, thought immediately of proposing
“a provisional alliance with England” (August 7, 1805). This
alliance was to be conditional and would become effective only
in case the United States should have to declare war against
France or Spain. “ In that event,” wrote Jefferson, “we should
make common cause, and England should stipulate not to
make peace without our obtaining the objects for which we go
to war, to wit, the acknowledgment by Spain of the rightful
boundaries of Louisiana (which we should reduce to a minimum
by a secret article) and 2, indemnification for spoliation, for
which purpose we should be allowed to make reprisal on the
Fioridas and retain them as an indemnification.” Jefferson
added that “as it was the wish of every Englishman’s heart
to see the United States fighting by their sides against France”,
the king and his ministers could do no better than to enter into
an alliance and the nation would consider it “as the price and

‘H. Adams, II, 257.

PEACE AND COMMERCE 447

pledge of an indissoluble friendship.” ^ There is little doubt
that if, at this juncture, Monroe had maneuvered more skill-
fully, if England had showed less arrogance in her treatment of
the United States, she could have secured at least the benev-
olent neutrality of America. But apparently England did not
caie for a benevolent neutrality. Alter Trafalgar, she was left
undisputed mistress of the ocean, she could enforce her own
regulations as she pleased, and she proceeded to do so.

The presidential message of December 3, 1805, had to present
very “unpleasant views of violence and wrong.” The coasts
of America were infested by “private armed vessels, some of
them with commissions, others without commissions”, all of
them committing enormities, sinking American merchantmen,
“maltreating the crews, abandoning them in boats in the open
seas or on desert shores. ” The same policy of “ hovering on the
coast” was carried on by “public armed vessels.” New prin-
ciples, too, had been “interloped into the law of nations,
founded neither in justice nor in the usage or acknowledgment of
nations” ; this was an allusion to the decision of Judge Scott
in the Essex case. With Spain negotiations had not had a
satisfactory issue, propositions for adjusting amicably the
boundaries of Louisiana had not been acceded to, and spoliation
claims formerly acknowledged had again been denied.

The President concluded that, although peace was still the
ultimate ideal of the United States, there were circumstances
which admitted of no peaceful remedy. Some evils were “of
a nature to be met by force only, and all of them may lead
to it.” Finally specific recommendations were made to or-
ganize the national defense; furnishing the seaports with
heavy cannon, increasing the number of gunboats, classifying
the militia so as to have ready a competent number of men
“for ofience or defence in any point where they may be
wanted”, prohibition of the exportations of arms and am-

* To James Madison, August 27, 1805. Memorial Edition, XI, 86.

448 THOMASJEFFERSON

munition, — such were the chief measures contemplated by
the President.

In the spring of 1806, he wrote a long letter to Alexander of
Russia, who had manifested a desire to have a copy of the
Constitution of the United States. This was an appeal to the
Czar, insisting that special articles defining the rights of neutrals
in time of war be inserted in the definitive treaty of peace sooner
or later to be concluded between the European belligerents.
Having taken no part in the troubles of Europe, “the United
States would have no part in its pacification”, but it was to be
hoped that some one would be found “who, looking beyond the
narrow bounds of an individual nation, will take under the
cover of his equity the rights of the absent and unrepresented.” ’•
Unfortunately, more than ten years were to elapse before that
pacification of Europe so earnestly hoped for by Jefferson came
about, and only a week before the British ministry had again
aggravated regulations against the neutrals by issuing orders
blockading the coast of the continent (April 8, 1806).

A few weeks later, Jefferson who, yielding to the pressure of
Congress, had agreed to appoint a special envoy to help Monroe
negotiate a commercial treaty with England, sent William
Pinkney of Maryland to London. “He has a just view of
things, so far as known to him,” wrote Jefferson to Monroe,
but he did not deem it desirable to trust hhn with special
instructions. For Monroe alone he reserved the complete
exposition of the plans then brooding in his mind. The death
of Pitt would probably mark a change in the attitude of Great
Britain ; the President had more confidence in Mr. Fox th an
in any other man in England and relied entirely on “his honesty
and good sense.” Then came an outline of the reasoning to
be put forward by Monroe; “No two countries upon earth
have so many points of common interests and friendship ; and
their rulers must be great bunglers indeed, if, with such disposi-
1 April 19, xSo6. Memorial Edition, XI, 103,

PEACE AND COMMERCE 449

tions, they break them asunder.” England might check the
United States a little on the ocean ; but she should realize that
nothing but her financial limitations prevented America from
having a strong navy. If France provided the money, so as to
equip an American fleet, the state of the ocean would be no
longer problematical. If England, on the contrary, made such
a proposition, an alliance of the two largest fleets “would make
the world out of the continent of Europe our joint monopoly.”
Then Jefferson added : “we wish for neither of these scenes —
We ask for peace and justice from all nations; and we wiU
remain uprightly neutral in fact, though leaning in belief to the
opinion that an English ascendency on the ocean is safer for us
than that of France.”

Finally, at the end of the letter, came the most extraordinarily
imperialistic proposition ever made by any nation ; it was the
extension of a pet theory of Jefferson to the Atlantic Ocean.
As he had claimed for the United States the free navigation of
all the streams originating on the territory of the United States,
he was ready to claim that the great current originating from
the Gulf should not be considered differently, and he wrote :
“We begin to broach the idea that we consider the whole Gulf
Stream as of our waters, in which hostilities and cruismg are
to be frowned on for the present, and prohibited so soon as
either consent or force wfll permit us.” ^

This might be thought a visionary scheme and merely a
flight of imagination, if Jefferson had not expressed the same
idea in identical terms in a conversation with the French
minister concerning the treaty negotiated in London by Monroe
and Pinkney : “Perhaps we shall obtain the right to extend our
maritime jurisdiction, and to carry it as far as the effect of the
Gulph Stream makes itself felt, which would be very advan-
tageous both to belligerents and neutrals.” ^

^ To Colonel James Monroe, May 4, 1806. Memorial Edition, XI, 106.

^ Turreau to Talleyrand, December 12, 1806, in H. Adams, III, 424.

450

THOMAS JEFFERSON

These being Jefferson’s views, it would have taken a far more
successful negotiator than Monroe to make the British Govern-
ment accept them. The treaty finally signed by the American
envoys on December i, 1806, was far from satisfactory. As a
matter of fact, the American envoys had been caught between
the hammer and the anvil. To the Fox blockade of April, 1806,
Napoleon had answered by the Berlin Decree at the end of
November, placing the British islands in a state of blockade,
declaring aU merchandise coming from England subject to
confiscation and refusing admission into any French port to any
vessel coming either from England or her colonies. Forbidden
by England to trade with France, by France to trade with
England, the neutrals were placed in a sorry plight. Yet not
only did Monroe in his treaty recognize the right of visit and of
impressing British seamen found on board American vessels,
but he gave up the American claims to indemnity for outrages
committed on American commerce in 1805, and accepted the
most humiliating conditions concerning American trade with
the French and Spanish colonies. Finally, before Monroe
could obtain the signature of the British negotiators, he had
to agree to an additional article by which he promised not
to recognize the decree of Berlin. In less than three weeks
Jefferson received Napoleon’s decree, the text of the Pinkney-
Monroe treaty, and the news of Lord Howick’s retaliatory
order requesting that no goods should be carried to France
unless they first touched at an English port and paid a certain
duty.

In spite of the pressing request of the Senate, Jefferson refused
to communicate the text of the treaty. The explanation
publicly given by the President was that Monroe had concluded
the treaty before receiving information as to the points to be
insisted upon, and that a new effort would be made to obtain
the modification of some particularly objectionable features.
“This is the statement we have given out,” he wrote to Monroe,

PEACE AND COMMERCE 4 Si

" and nothing more of the treaty has ever been made known.
But depend on it, my dear Sir, that it will be considered as a
hard treaty when it is known.” If it appeared to Monroe that
no amendment was to be hoped for, he was authorized to come
home, leaving behind him Pinkney, who by procrastination
would let it die and thus would give America more time “the
most precious of all things to us.” ^

New instructions were sent accordingly to the American
envoys at the end of May, but the problem of the relations
with England became suddenly more acute during Aaron
Burr’s trial.

On June 22, the Chesapeake of the American navy, bound for
the Mediterranean, was hauled up in view of Cape Henry by
the Leopard of the British squadron, and summons were sent
to Commodore Barron to deliver some British deserters he was
supposed to have on board. Upon Barron’s refusal, the
Leopard opened fire and for fifteen minutes sent broadsides into
the American ship, so unprepared and unready that only one
shot could be fired in answer. The American flag was hauled
down, British officers boarded the ship and Look four deserters ;
after which Captain Humphreys of the Leopard declared to
Barron that he could proceed on his way. The Chesapeake
limped back into port, and on the twenty-fifth, Jefferson called
back to Washington Dearborn and Gallatin to consider the
emergency in a meeting of the Cabinet.

What his indignation over the outrage may have been is a
matter of surmise. He did not express it either privately or
publicly. To Governor Wffliam H. Cabell, who had sent him a
special message and report, he answered diplomatically that,
after consulting the Cabinet he would determine “the course
which exigency and our constitutional powers call for. —
Whether the outrage is a proper cause of war, belonging exclu-
sively to Congress, it is our duty not to commit them by doing

^ To Monroe, March ar, 1807. Memorial Edition, XI, rd?.

4S2

TPIOMAS JEFFERSON

anything which would have to be retracted.” But it is certain
that, even at that time, he was not ready to recommend any
radical step, for he added ;

This will leave Congress free to decide whether war is the most
efficacious mode of redress in our case, or whether, having taught so
many other useful lessons to Europe, we may not add that of showing
them that there are peaceable means of repressing injustice by mak-
ing it the interest of the aggressor to do what is just and abstain
from future wrong.^

It was scarcely necessary to call the Cabinet together ; three
days before the special meeting the President had already
decided on a policy of forbearance and watchful waiting. The
proclamation which was issued was moderate in tone, but
Jefferson expressed more clearly in a letter to the Vice President,
George Clinton, the reasons for his moderation.

The usage of nations requires that we shall give the offender an
opportunity of making reparation and avoiding war. That we
would give time to our merchants to get in their property and vessels
and our seamen now afloat ; That the power of declaring war being
with the Legislature, the executive could do nothing necessarily
committing them to decide for war in preference of non-intercourse,
which will be preferred by a great many.**

In order to make even more certain that no precipitate step
would be taken, it was decided to issue, on August 24, a procla-
mation calling Congress together, but not until the fourth
Monday in October. It was the manifest hope of the President
that by that date some satisfaction would be obtained from
England with regard to the most flagrant violations of the
“droit des gens", and that extreme measures could be avoided.

In the meantime new instructions had been sent to Monroe.
“Reparation for the past, and security for the future is our
motto,” wrote the President to Du Pont de Nemours. Repara-

‘ June 29, 1807. Memorial Edition, XI, 256,

* July 6, 1807. Ibid., XI, 258.

PEACE AND COMMERCE 453

tion for the past, at least as far as the attack on the Chesapeake
was concerned, would have been easy to obtain, but Canning
refused persistently to make any promise for the future, or to
alter the policy of Great Britain with regard to visit and
impressment. For his firmness in refusing to settle the case of
the Chesapeake independently, Jefferson has been most severely
criticized by Henry Adams, whose a dm iration for Perceval’s and
Canning’s superior minds is unbounded. Shall I confess that
on this particular pomt, at least, I should rather agree with the
English biographer of Jefferson, Mr. Hirst, who declares that
“no second-rate lawyer was ever more obtuse than Perceval,
and the wit of Canning, his foreign secretary, seldom issued
in wisdom.” On this occasion Great Britain was even more
stupid than she had been in 1776 ; she missed her great oppor-
tunity to operate a reconciliation with the United States and to
turn them against France, without other compensation than the
pleasure of outwitting the American envoys and once more
treating scornfully the younger country. The real answer of
England was given in the Orders in Council of November ii,
1807, prohibiting all neutral trade with the whole European
seacoast from Copenhagen to Trieste. No American vessel
was to be allowed to enter any port of Europe from which
British vessels were excluded without first going to England
and abiding by regulations to be determined later.

In the meantime, Jefferson was pushing fast his preparations
for defence. A detailed examination of his correspondence
during the summer and fall of that year would justify hun amply
from the criticism of several American historians.^ He still
hoped for peace, or more exactly peace remained his ideal,
although he had very little hope that Monroe would succeed
in his negotiations. But nothing could be done as long as
American ships and sailors, “at least twenty thousand men”,

iSee particularly bis letters to Cabell, August ii, 1S07, and to Dearborn, August
28. Memorial Edition, XI, 318, 342.

454

THOMAS JEFFERSON

were on the seas^ an easy prey to British vessels in case war
should be declared at once. “ The loss of these,” wrote JeSer-
son quite correctly, “would be worth to Great Britain many
victories on the Nile and Trafalgar.” ^

To judge of Jefferson’s conduct at that time from our modern
point of view would be most unfair and dangerous. He could
neither cable, nor send radiograms, nor even steamships to
warn American citizens in distant ports, nor give instructions
to agents of the United States all over the world. It took
months for news to cross the ocean and sometunes a year or
more to receive an answer to a letter. The geographical isola-
tion of the United States, their remoteness from Europe and the
slowness of communications were obvious factors of the situa-
tion, yet they are too often neglected in judging the policy then
followed by the President. As the year advamced, Jefferson’s
hope of being able to maintain peace grew fainter. There is a
spirit of helplessness in a letter he wrote to James Maury at the
end of November ;

The world as you justly observe, is truly in an awful state. Two
nations of overgrown power are endeavoring to establish, the one
an universal dominion by sea, the other by land. ... We are
now in hourly expectation of hearing from our ministers in London
by the return of the “Revenge.” Whether she wiU bring us war or
peace, or the middle state of non-intercourse, seems suspended
in equal balance.®

The message to Congress, of Octorber 27, contained no
specific recommendation. It was a dispassionate recital of the
circumstances which had necessitated new instructions to
Monroe, a promise that Congress would be informed of the
result of the negotiations, news of which was expected hourly,
and an enumeration of the measures taken towards the defense
of the coimtry. When the first news finally came, the President

• To John Page, July 17, 1807. Memorial Edition, XI, 285.

® November 22, 1807. Ibid., XI, 397.

PEACE AND COMMERCE 455

had already decided upon the course to follow. On December
i8, 1807, he sent to Congress one of his shortest messages :

The communications now made, showing the great and increasing
dangers with which our vessels, our seamen, and merchandise, are
threatened on the high seas and elsewhere, from the belligerent
powers of Europe, and it being of great importance to keep in safety
these essential resources, I deem it my duty to recommend the sub-
ject to the consideration of Congress, who will doubtless perceive all
the advantages which may be expected from an inhibition of the
departure of our vessels from the ports of the United States. Their
wisdom will also see the necessity of making every preparation for
whatever events may grow out of the present crisis.

The situation was much more clearly described in a letter to
General John Mason written approximately at the same time.

The sum of these mutual enterprises on our national rights —
wrote the President — is that France, and her allies, reserving for
further consideration the prohibiting our carrying anything to the
British territories, have virtually done it, by restraining our bring-
ing a return cargo from them; and that Great Britain, after pro-
hibiting a great proportion of our commerce with France and her
allies, is no w believed to have prohibited the whole. The whole world
is thus laid under interdict by these two nations, and our vessels,
their cargoes and crews, are to be taken by the one or the other, for
whatever place they may be destined out of our own limits. If
therefore, on leaving our harbors we are certain to lose them, is it
not better, as to vessels, cargoes and seamen, to keep them at home ?
This is submitted to the wisdom of Congress, who alone are compe-
tent to provide a remedy.^

As in so many other instances the temptation is great to
draw a parallel between Jefierson’s policies and the neutrality
advocated by Woodrow Wilson during his first term, and to
repeat the worn-out and dangerous adage “history repeats

* Memorial Edition, XI, 401. This may be simply a draft of the message written
on a sheet of paper which happened to bear the name of General Mason. See Henry
Adams, IV, 168,

4s6 THOMAS JEFFERSON

itself.” As a matter of fact, the situation, faced by Jefferson in
1808 was entirely different from that which confronted Presi-
dent Wilson from 1914 to 1917. Am erica was not then a rich
and powerful country with unlimited resources. The people
had just emerged from a long and distressiag financial crisis,
for it took more than one generation to heal the wounds of a
war which had lasted six years. The Federal Government was
far from being as strong as it was destined to become. The
navy was ridiculously inadequate, not only to go out and give
battle to the English fleet, but even, to use Jefferson's expres-
sion, to keep the seaports ^‘hors d’insuUe.”

These facts must be kept in mind if one wishes to form a true
estimate of Jefferson’s conduct and character during the calami-
tous years of his second term. To criticize his policies is an
easy feat for a modern historian, for it is natural that an
American of to-day should resent Jefferson’s attitude as
unworthy of a great self-respecting nation. Undoubtedly the
President might have sent a warlike message to Congress and
war would have immediately followed, but on the whole the
issue had been taken out of his hands in December, 1807. The
embargo, as he justly pointed out, was no new policy and no
new measure ; it was simply a recognition of a situation created
by both France and Great Britain. The only way out would
have been a formal declaration of war, and one does not quite
see what this grand gesture would have accomplished. Cer-
tainly the United States were no more in position to march into
Canada in 1807 than they were in 1812, and if they had suc-
ceeded in taking possession of the British colony, it is unlikely
that Great Britain would have accepted such a loss with
equanimity. Furthermore, even if a formal alliance had been
concluded with France, the French fleet would have been
powerless to prevent the British navy from cruising on the
American coast and repeating, if they had wished, the outrages
that had befallen Copenhagen.

PEACE AND COMMERCE 457

Anotlier solution, favored by such a liberal historian of
Jefferson as Mr. A. J. Nock, would have been frankly to recog-
nize the existing situation and to leave the New England mer-
chants free to send out their vessels at their own risk. This
would have relieved to a certain extent the economic distress of
the northern States, but whether it would have been more
honest or more dignified than the embargo is a matter of
opinion. Such a policy would have been neutral only in ap-
pearance ; it would have amounted to a tacit recognition of a
British monopoly of the American trade, since England was
really the only country to which American ships would have
been permitted to go. Granting that the embargo was “ the
most arbitrary, mquisitorial, and confiscatory measure formu-
lated in American legislation up to the period of the Civil
War ’V I fail to see that the prestige of the United States would
have gained much by allowing their citizens to submit to the
hmniliating Orders in Council of November ii, 1807. Of all
policies this would have been the most evasive, most vacillating
and least dignified.

It must be furthermore remembered that though he was
gifted with remarkable foresight, Jefferson was in no position to
guess that the conflict between England and France would
last for seven more years. He believed, on the contrary, that
the Titanic struggle would come, if not to a definite close, at
least to a pause, within a comparatively short time : “Time
may produce peace in Europe; peace in Europe removes all
causes of difference, till another European war ; and by that
time our debt may be paid, our revenue clear, and our strength
increased.” ^ This reasoning reappears in many letters written
by Jefferson during the last year of his administration. His
correspondence during the months that separated him from rest
and philosophical meditation may be devoid of dramatic

1 A. J, Node, “Jefierson”, p. 266. New York, 1926.

® To John Taylor, January 6 , 1808. Memorial Edition, XI, 413.

458 THOMASJEFFERSON

interest, but a thorough perusal of it would demonstrate that
at no time durmg his long political career were his motives
less interested, less partisan and more truly patriotic.

At no time, either, was he more bitterly attacked. He
suffered from “the peltings of the storm” and cried out patheti-
cally to Benjamin Rush: “Oh! for the day when I shall be
withdrawn from it; when I shall have leisure to enjoy my
family, my friends, my farm and books.” But the defection
of the Republicans in Congress, the divergence of opinions in
his Cabinet, the threats of secession, the anonymous letters and
the press campaign launched against him had no power to shake
his strong negative resolution. Yet in aU justice to him it may
be seen that his policy was not entirely negative.

First of all his letters show that he never considered the
embargo as a permanent cure. As early as March, 1808,
writing to Charles Pinckney, the former envoy to Spain, he
declared that the effect of the embargo would be “to postpone
for this year the immediate danger of a rupture with England.”
He admitted that a time would come “when war would be
preferable to a continuance of the embargo and that the
question would have to be decided at the next meetmg of
Congress unless peace intervened in the meantime.” ^ Under
these circumstances the repeal of the embargo voted by Con-
gress to take effect after Jefferson’s retirement cannot be con-
sidered as a rebuke to the President. Moreover, it appears
that Jefferson had given some thought to three and not two
alternatives: i, embargo; 2, war; 3, submission and tribute,
— the third being exactly that advocated by Mr. Nock. In
Jefferson’s opinion this third solution was at once “to be put
out by every American and the two first considered.” ^ Writ-
ing to Thomas Leib, earlier in the year, he had already defined
his position with regard to this solution, recommended by the

‘ March 30, 1808. Memorial Edition, XI, 23.

® To Governor Charles Knckney. Novenier 8, 1808. 76/d., XII, 190.

PEACE AND COMMERCE

4S9

mercantile interests : “It is true, the time will come when we
must abandon it (the embargo). But if this is before the repeal
of the orders of council, we must abandon it only for a state of
war. The day is not distant, when that will be preferable to a
longer continuance of the embargo. But we can never remove
that, and let our vessels go out and be taken under these orders
without making reprisal.” This is itself evidence, but it has
apparently escaped many historians as well as many contem-
poraries of Jefferson. If the embargo is considered not as a
permanent policy but as a political expedient and a political
experiment, the greater part of Hemy Adams’ arraignment of
Jefierson’s political philosophy falls flat.' When, on the other
hand, the same writer admits that “ the result was that the
embargo saved perhaps twenty millions of dollars a year and
some thousands of lives which the war would have consumed”,
we may be permitted to add that Jefferson would not have
granted the principle that “the strongest objection to war
was not its waste of money or even of life; for money and
life in political economy were worth no more than they could
be made to produce.” If this is economic history. Heaven
preserve us from economic policies ! As to the accusation
that “Jefferson’s system was preaching the fear of war, of
self-sacrifice, making many smugglers and traitors, but not
a single hero”, I must humbly confess that one does not
see that America would have been much richer for engaging
without adequate preparation or even a fair chance to defend
herself in a useless and, in last analysis, probably inglorious war.

It is claimed, however, that the embargo caused an economic
catastrophe :

As the order was carried along the seacoast, every artisan dropped
his tools, every merchant closed his doors, every ship was dismantled.
American produce wheat, timber, cotton, tobacco, rice —
dropped in value or became unsalable ; every imported article rose

‘ Henry Adams, IV, chapter XU, “The Cost of Embargo.”

46 o THOMASJEFFERSON

in price ; wages stopped, swarms of debtors became bankrupt ; thou-
sands of sailors hung idle around the wharves. ... A reign of idle-
ness began; and the men who were not already ruined felt that
their ruin was only a matter of time.^

A very pathetic picture this, made even more pitiful by the
classic quotation from the British traveler, Lambert, who
visited New York in 1808 and described it as a place ravaged
by pestilence. But why not quote also from another traveler,
John Mellish, who spoke of the impetus given to manufactures
and home industries?^ Why forget to mention Gallatin’s
report of 1810, pointing out that some basic industries had
been firmly established in the United States, such as iron,
cotton, flax, hats, paper, printing t5rpe, gunpowder, window
glass, clocks, etc. Who could deny, at any rate, that manu-
factures made enomious progress, thanks to the embargo, and
that goods formerly imported from England began to be made
in America? Even supposing that the picture drawn by
H. Adams were true, it would be necessary to admit that there
was another side to it and that a few artisans, at least, remained
working steadily at their benches.

The last annual message of Jefferson to Congress was non-
committal on the measures to be taken. It presented first a
dispassionate recital of the negotiations carried on with France
and England to bring them to rescind the most offensive fea-
tures of their orders and decrees. It recognized that “this
candid and liberal experiment had failed.” It was left to Con-
gress to determine what course to follow :

Under a continuance of the belligerent measures which, in defiance
of laws which consecrate the rights of neutrals, overspread the ocean
with danger, it will rest with the wisdom of Congress to decide on the
course best adapted to such a state of things ; and bringing with

^ Henry Adams, IV, 277.

“Walter W. Jennings, "A History of economic progress in the United States”,
p. 160, New York, 1926,

PEACE AND COMMERCE 461

them, as they do, from every part of the Union, the sentiments of
our constituants, my confidence is strengthened, that in forming
this decision they will, with an unerring regard to the essential
rights and interests of the nation weigh and compare the painful
alternatives out of which a choice is to be made.

This reserved attitude Jefferson intended to maintain during
the rest of his term. “I have thought it right to take no part
myself in proposing measures, the execution of which wUl
devolve on my successor. I am therefore chiefly an unmedling
listener to what others say.” ^ But to Doctor William Eustis
he protested that “while thus endeavoring to secure, and pre-
paring to vindicate that commerce, the absurd opinion has been
propagated, that this temporary and necessary arrangement
was to be a permanent system and was intended for its destruc-
tion.” ^ And this seems to indicate that he was quite definite
in his own mind, even if he refrained from expressing his opinion
officially.

After more than a month’s deliberation in Congress, Jefferson
had come to believe that “Congress had taken their ground
firmly for continuing the embargo tiU June, and then war.”
Quite suddenly, however, the majority, frightened by threats
of secession openly made by the New England members, and
fearful of the famous Essex Jimto, rallied to a compromise.
Neither the people nor Congress were for war, and that fact
had been clearly realized very early both by the French and
the British ministers ; at the same t im e it was felt that some-
thing must be done to relieve to some extent the financial
distress of the Virginia planters and New England merchants.
The result was that Congress decided to remove the embargo
on March 4, “non intercourse with France and Great Britain,
trade everywhere else, and continumg war preparations.” ®

* To Doctor George Logan, December 27, 1808. Memorial Edition, XII, 219.

* January 14, 1809. lUd., XII, 227.

* To Thomas Mann Randolph, February 7, 1809. Ibid., XII, 248,

462 THOMAS JEFFERSON

On the first of March, three days before the inauguration of
his successor, Jefferson signed the bill, but not without serious
misgivings. The letters he wrote at that time contain even
more convincing evidence that he did not expect the embargo
to last much longer. To General Armstrong, the American
representative in Paris, he declared on March 5 that “War must
follow if the edicts are not repealed before the meeting of Con-
gress in May.” With Short, whom he had tried without suc-
cess to have appointed Minister to Russia, he was more explicit
if no less emphatic : “ We have substituted for it (the embargo),
a non-intercourse with France and England and their depend-
encies, and a trade to all other places. It is probable that the
belligerents will take our vessels under their edicts, in which
case we shall probably declare war against them.” ^ Finally,
to Madison himself, he wrote after reaching Monticello ;

It is to be desired that war may be avoided, if circumstances will
admit. Nor in the present maniac state of Europe, should I
estimate the point of honor by the ordinary scale. I believe we
shall, on the contrary, have credit with the world, for having made
the avoidance of being engaged in the present unexampled war, our
first object. War, however, may become a less losing business than
unresisted depredation.^

Whatever may have been the opposition to the embargo
and the opposition to Jefferson of disaffected Republicans, it
is remarkable that he was able to keep his party in hand to the
last minute and to choose his successor. Early at the begin-
ning of his second term, he had expressed his irrevocable
intention not to become a candidate for a third term. He was
longing for his farm, his books, for the comforts of family life
and he was not in the best of health.

Not only had he been troubled by rheumatism, but “peri-
odical headaches” recurring at frequent intervals left him

' Match 8, 1809. Memorial Edition, XII, 264.

* March 17, 1809 Ibid., XII, 266,

PEACE AND COMMERCE 463

for days unable to write and hardly able “to compose his
thoughts.”

The Republicans had to make a choice between three possible
candidates : George Clinton, Monroe, and Madison. The
strongest argument that could be advanced in favor of the
first was that, according to a precedent already apparently
established, the Vice President was the logical successor, the
“heir apparent”, as Adams had termed it, to a retiring Presi-
dent. Moreover, Clinton could count on the support of the
New York Republicans and had aroused no strong antagonism
against himself. It soon became obvious, however, that the
contest lay between the two Virginians and that the Virginia
dynasty would not be broken as yet. Monroe was not without
support in his native State and his candidacy had been upheld
by a Republican caucus held by Randolph and his friends at
Richmond ; but another caucus of the Assembly had given a
decisive majority to Madison. On January 23, 1808, a congres-
sional caucus held in Washington pronounced decisively for
Madison as President and George Clinton as Vice President.
But Randolph held aloof and with his friends published a pro-
test against the candidacy of Madison, who had “moderation
when energy was needed”, whose theories of government were
tainted with federalism, “when the country was asking for
consistency and loathing and abhorrence from any compromise.”
The danger of a split in the Republican Party was indeed serious,
and while Jefferson reasserted his wish not to participate in any
way in the campaign, he wrote to Monroe a long letter, deplor-
ing the situation and making an obvious appeal to his party
loyalty. He warned him particularly against the passions
that could not fail to be aroused in such a contest, and con-
jured him to keep clear “of the toils in which his friends would
endeavor to interlace him.”

That Monroe’s amour-propre was deeply wounded appears
in the letter he wrote in answer to his “ chief.” He complained

464 THOMASJEFFERSON

lengthily and bitterly of having been handicapped by the send-
ing of Pinkney and of the criticism to which he had been sub-
jected on account of the treaty. Once again Jefferson had to
soothe the discontent of his friend and ^‘eleve”, which to a
certain extent he succeeded in doing. It soon appeared, how-
ever, that the question would solve itself, that neither Monroe
nor Clinton was strong enough to control the Republican
majority. Wlien the results came in, the Republicans had
suffered the loss of all New England except Vermont, but
Madison carried the election by one hundred and twenty-two
votes, against forty-seven to C. C. Pinckney and six for Clinton,
True enough, in several states the electors had been selected
before the full pressure of the embargo was felt, but with such a
substantial majority it is difficult to accept unreservedly Henry
Adams’ view that “no one could fail to see that if nine months
of embargo had so shattered Jefferson’s power, another such
year would shake the Union itself,”

BOOK SIX

The Sage of Monticello

CHAPTER I

“AMERICA HAS A HEMISPHERE TO ITSELF”

When, after a long and fatiguing journey, Thomas Jefferson
reached Monticello in the spring of 1809, he was in his sixty-third
year and had well earned his “quadragena stipendia.” But
the Republic did not serve any pension to retired Presidents.
For more than twelve years he had perforce neglected his
domain, and his son-in-law, who had been in charge of the
estate for some time, was scarcely a man to be intrusted with
the administration of complicated financial interests. A large
part of Jefferson’s time was necessarily spent in setting things
to rights ; but the times were against him, and the embargo
had proved more detrimental to the great landowners of the
South than to the New England manufacturers. A planter
whose sole revenue consisted in his crops had the utmost difB.-
culty in providing for a large family of dependants, and a con-
siderable number of slaves who had to be fed and clad, and
most of all in keeping up appearances. Jefferson was hardly
freed from public responsibilities when he had to labor under
domestic dilficulties which worried him even to his death bed.

Under his direction, however, Monticello became more than
ever a self-supporting commimity; the slaves were taught all
the necessary trades and when, thanks to the merino sheep
brought over by Du Pont de Nemours, woolen goods of fine
quality were made at Monticello, the master of the house was
proud to wear clothes of homespun which, in his opinion, could
rival the best produce of the English manufactures, Whole
books could be written, and several have been written, on
Jefferson the agriculturist, the surveyor, the civil engineer,

468 THOMAS JEFFERSON

the inventor and the architect. There is, however, another
aspect of his last years which deserves more attention than
it usually receives.

For thirty years JeSerson had lived almost constantly under
the scrutiny of the public. His utterances had been pounced
upon by eager enemies of the “ cannibal press ” ; letters intended
solely for friends had been printed, several times in a garbled
form, and during his presidency he had been unable to com-
municate freely with his European friends for fear of having his
letters intercepted. At last, he could express himself freely.
He was no longer the spokesman of the country who had to
ascertain the state of public opinion before writing a message
or sending a communication to a foreign government. He
could speak for himself, without being hindered by the ever-
present danger of political repercussions, and if he did not
speak much, he wrote several thousand letters, many of which
are still unpublished — an overwhelming treasure for historians
of the period. His physical strength was somewhat impaired,
but his intellectual powers were in no way diminished ; never
had his mind been keener, his perception of realities clearer
and his extraordinary gift of political prophecy more accurate
than during the last fifteen years of his life. This is the period
to study in order to understand more fully his conception of
Americanism, his vision of democracy and the practical wisdom
which permeated his philosophy of old age.

His valedictory letter to Madison, written from Monticello
on March 17, 1809, contained a very curious admission of the
inability of the United States to carry out war successfully with
their present organization; ‘T know of no Government,” he
wrote, ‘'which would be so embarrassing in war as ours. This
would proceed very much from the lying and licentious char-
acter of our papers ; hut also, from the wonderful credulity
of the members of Congress in the floating lies of the day.” ^

' Memorial Edition, XII, 267.

THOMAS JEFFERSON
From Ihe port) ail by Kosciuszko

AMERICA HAS A HEMISPHERE 469

This was no passing whim of his, hut a very definite and cate-
gorical understanding of the functions devolving upon the
Executive in times of emergency. He had not forgotten his
experience as Governor of Virginia, when he had to coax nec-
essary measures from a reluctant Assembly; his eight years
as Chief Executive of the country had only strengthened him
in the opinion that “In times of peace, the people look most
to their representatives, but in war to the Executive solely.”
He found a confirmation of this theory in the state of public
opinion, when he wrote to Rodney, early in 1810 : “ It is visible
that their confidence is now veering in that direction : that they
are looking to the executive to give the proper direction to their
affairs, with a confidence as auspicious as it is well founded.” ^

A few months later, writing to J. B. Colvin, he took up again
the same question : “In what circumstances is it permitted for
the man in charge to assume authority beyond the law?”
That he was personally interested in the matter was evident,
since he had exceeded his constitutional powers very recently,
during the Burr conspiracy. It is nevertheless remarkable to
see the champion of legality and democracy declare that :

A strict observance of the written law is doubtless one of the high
duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of
necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger
are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous
adherence to written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life,
liberty, property and all those enjo3dng them with us ; thus absurdly
sacrificing the end to the means.’*

To a certain extent this was a plea pro domo sua. If we
remember that, during the World War, the motto of America
was, for more than two years, “Stand by the President”, it
will be seen that Jefferson was as good a prophet as an intel-

^ February 10, 1810. Memorial Edition, XII, 337.

“To J. B. Colvin. September 20, 1810. /6id., XII, 422 ; see also letter to Cassar
Rodney, September 23. Ibid., XII, 426.

470 THOMAS JEFFERSON

ligent observer. This admission of his may seem undemocratic,
but it simply shows that the former President had a clear
perception of the permanent tendencies that direct American
consciousness; for no people are more disciplined and more
ready to follow their chosen executive than the Americans, at
least on critical occasions, and more particularly when con-
fronted with foreign aggression.

War was still to be avoided and considered only as the ultima
ratio rei publicae. On this point also, Jefferson was perfectly
consistent, and, having shed the responsibility, he did not
suddenly change his attitude. The “point of honor” was not
to be estimated by the ordinary scale in the present maniac
state of Europe. But America must realize at the same time
that no ordinary treaty could insure her safety. A treaty with
England could not even be thought of ; for “the British never
made an equal treaty with any nation.”

With regard to France the situation was somewhat different.
Some compensation was due to America for forcing Great
Britain to revoke her orders in council. But what compensa-
tion ? The acquiescence of Bonaparte to the annexation of the
Floridas? That was no price; for “they are ours in the first
moment of the first war ; and until a war they are of no particu-
lar necessity.” The only territory that the United States might
covet was Cuba. “That would be a price, and I would immedi-
ately erect a column on the southernmost limit of Cuba, and
inscribe on it a ne plus ultra to us in that direction . . . .
Cuba can be defended by us without a navy, and this develops
the principle which ought to limit our views. Nothing should
ever be accepted which would require a navy to defend it.”

In the meantime, Jefferson did not miss any opportunity to
justify the embargo. Even after its repeal, he insisted that
“ enough of the non-importation laws should be preserved ist,
to pinch them into a relinquishment of impressments, and and,

> To Madison, April 27, 1S09. Memorial Edition. XII. 275.

AMERICA HAS A HEMISPHERE 471

to support those manufacturing establishments, which their
orders, and our interests, forced us to make.” ^

To Du Pont de Nemours he wrote a long letter, stating in
detail the advantages accrued to America from the embargo,
and this point is well worth keeping in mind by those who
insist on considering Jefferson as a hundred per cent, agrarian :

The barefaced attempts of England to make us accessories and
tributaries to her usurpations on the high seas — he wrote to the old
Physiocrat — have generated in this country an universal spirit
for manufacturing for ourselves, and of reducing to a m in i mum the
number of articles for which we are dependent on her. The advan-
tages too, of lessening the occasions of risking our peace on the
ocean, and of planting the consumer on our own soil by the side of
the grower of produce, are so palpable, that no temporary suspension
of injuries on her part, or agreements founded on that, will now
prevent our continuing in what we have begun.^

So wrote the supposed agrarian to the founder of physiocracy,
and this is a evidence that Jefferson was not a Physio-

crat of the first water. As a matter of fact, on tlris point as on
so many others, he had strong negative principles. As we have
already pointed out on several occasions, Jefferson was not so
much opposed to manufactures and industries as to mercantil-
ism, and particularly to English mercantilism. This corrective
ought to be taken into consideration in any estimate of the Jef-
fersonian democracy, and one may wonder whether some con-
tinuators of Mr. Beard arc sufficiently aware of this capital
distinction.

It soon appeared to Jefferson that there was no possible way
out except war. Contrary to all expectations, the convulsions
of Europe continued and no hope of a permanent peace was in
sight. The death of Bonaparte “would remove the first and
chiefest apostle of the desolation of men and morals and might

^ To Madison, April 19, 1809. Memorial Edition, XII, 271.

“ June 28, 1809, Ibid., XII, 293.

472 THOMAS JEFFERSON

withdraw the scourge of the land. But what is to restore order
and safety on the ocean. The death of George III? Not at
all . . . The principle that force is right, is become the prin-
ciple of the nation itself.” ^

As a matter of fact, Bonaparte was little to be feared. He
still had the whole world to conquer before turning his eyes
towards America.

England on the contrary is an ever-present danger not to be
relied upon as an ally for she would make a separate peace and leave
us in the lurch. Her good faith? The faith of a nation of mer-
chants. The Punka Jidcs of modem Carthage. Of the friend of
the protectress of Copenhagen. Of the nation who never admitted
a chapter of morality into her political code.

Then follows a formidable indictment of the treacherous
policies of England with a curious and most interesting dis-
crimination at the end, for Jefferson observes that “it presents
the singular phenomenon of a nation, the individuals of which
are as faithful to their private engagements and duties, as
honorable, as worthy, as those of any nation on earth, and
whose government is yet the most unprincipled at this day
known.” ^

All told, both nations could be tarred with the same brush
“for,” said Jefferson, “I should respect just as much the rules
of conduct which governed Cartouche or Blackbeard as those
now acted on by France or England.” ® The only difference
was that France was not in a position to cause as much damage
to American interests as her hereditary enemy whose claim to
“ dominion of the ocean and to levy tribute on every flag travers-
ing that, as lately attempted and not relinquished, every nation
must contest, even ad internecionem" '*

* To Rodney, February lo, 1810. Memorial Edition, XII, 357.

*To Governor John litngdon, March s, 1810. Ibid , XII, 373.

* To Thomas Cooper, August 6, i8io. Ibid,, XII, 401.

* To Thomas Law, January 15, t8iq. Ibid,, XII, 439.

AMERICA HAS A HEMISPHERE 473

This detestation of English policies and English rulers did
not, however, extend to individuals. Even when war was to be
declared Jefferson took care to establish what he considered as
a very necessary distinction in a fine letter sent to James Maury,
his “dear and ancient friend and classmate” :

Our two countiies are at war, but not you and I. And why
should our two countries be at war, when by peace we can be so
much more useful to one another. Surely the world will acquit our
government from having sought it. . . . V/e consider the over-
whelming power of England on the ocean, and of France on the land,
as destructive of the prosperity and happiness of the world, and
wish both to be reduced only to the necessity of observing moral
duties. I believe no more in Bonaparte’s fighting merely for the
liberty of the seas, than in Great Britain’s fighting for the liberties of
mankind. . . . We resist the enterprises of England first, because
they first come vitally home to us. And our feelings repel the logic
of bearing the lash of George III, for fear of that of Bonaparte at
some future day. When the wrongs of France shall reach us with
equal effect, we shall resist them also. But one at a time is enough ;
and having offered a choice to the champions, England first takes up
the gauntlet.^

Since war was declared, the only thing to keep in mind was
to make it as advantageous as possible to the United States.
Thanks to the Louisiana Purchase, France had been eliminated
forever from the American continent, but the existence of a large
British province on the northern border constituted an ever-
present source of anxiety and danger for the Union. The
first war aim of the United States was consequently to expel
Great Britain from tlie North American continent, for as long
as England could use her continental dominion as “a fulcrum
for her Machiavellian levers” there would be no safety lor the
United States. On the other hand, the war could not be
carried out to a successful conclusion if during the hostilities

* April 25, 1812 Memorial Edition, XIII, 14.5.

474 THOMAS JEFFERSON

America were kept unable to export the surplus of her produce.
Jefferson therefore recommended that neutral vessels be used
“and even enemy vessels under neutral flag, which I should
wink at”, wrote Jefferson to the President.^

This last recommendation may seem surprising and almost
treasonable, but Jefferson lived in close contact with farmers
and planters, and he still remembered their attitude during
the Revolutionary War and knew that “to keep the war popu-
lar we must keep open the markets. As long as good prices
can be had, the people will support the war cheerfully.”

Later in the year he was able to report to the President :

Our farmers are cheerful in the expectation of a good price for
wheat in Autumn. Their pulse will he regulated by this, and not
by the successes or disasters of the war. To keep open sufficient
markets is the very first object towards maintaining the popularity
of the war, which is as great at present as could be desired.^

To be correctly understood, this attitude of Jefferson advo-
cating trade with the enemy requires some further elucidation.
As a matter of fact, the issue was not so clear-cut as it would
seem. While England was to be considered as America’s
enemy on the continent, she was “fighting America’s battles”
in Europe, for the ultimate triumph of Bonaparte would have
been pregnant with dangers for the Union. He consequently
advocated the exportation of grain to Great Britain :

If she is to be fed at all events, why may not we have the benefit
of it as well as others. I would not indeed, feed her armies landed
on our territory, because the difficulty of inland communication
subsistence is what will prevent their ever penetrating far into the
country. . . . But this would be my only exception, and as to feed-
ing her armies in the Peninsular, she is fighting our battles there, as
Bonaparte is on the Baltic,®

' June 29, i8t2. Memorial Edition, XIII, 173.

® August s, 1812. Ibtd , Xm, 183,

*/Wd.,xm, 2od.

AMERICA HAS A HEMISPHERE 475

But it must also be admitted that Jefferson considered that
in war aU is fair. He had not changed much since the remote
days of the Revolution when he urged Washington to permit him
to use measures of retaliation on the British prisoners. Once
again he did not scruple to recommend measures sometimes
used but seldom so frankly advocated. He would not have
hesitated to bring the war home to Great Britain and to resort
to retaliation. “Perhaps they will burn New York or Boston,”
he wrote to Duane. “If they do, we must burn the city of
London, not by expensive fleets or congreve rockets, but by
employing an hundred or two Jack-the-painters, whom naked-
ness, famine, desperation and hardened vice, will abundantly
furnish among themselves.” ^

But the thing never to be lost sight of was the conquest of
Canada and “the final expulsion of England from the American
continent.” It was to be a very simple expedition, “a mere
matter of marching”, and the weakness of the enemy was to
make “our errors innocent.” All these sanguine expectations
were blasted to dust by the Hull disaster. Three frigates
taken by “om- gallant little navy” could not balance “three
armies lost by treachery, cowardice, or incapacity of those to
whom they were entrusted.” The mediation of Russia was
the only hope left, but the enemies were to remain “bedecked
with the laurels of the land” — the reverse of what was to be
expected and perhaps what was to be wished.®

Throughout the whole campaign Jefferson was unable to
choose between France and England, or rather between Bona-
parte and England’s corrupted government. Strong as were his
denunciations of English policies and crimes, he almost foamed
at the mouth when he mentioned the abominable Corsican :

That Bonaparte is an unprincipled tyrant who is deluging the
continent of Europe with blood, there is not a human being, not even

‘ October i, 1812. Memorial Edition, XIII, 187
*To William Duane, April 4, 1813. Ihid , XIII, 231.

476 THOMAS JEFFERSON

the wife of his bosom, who does not see. There is no doubt as to
the line we ought to wish drawn between his successes and those of
Alexander. Surely none of us wish to see Bonaparte conquer Russia,
and lay thus at his feet the whole continent of Europe. This done,
England would be just a breakfast.'

The “true line of interest” of the United States was conse-
quently that Bonaparte should be able to effect the complete
exclusion of England from the whole continent of Europe, in
order to make her renounce her views of dominion over the
ocean. As there was no longer any hope of expelling England
completely from the American continent, it remained “the
interest of the U. S. to wish Bonaparte a moderate success so as
to curb the a m bition of Great Britain.” “

From this and many other similar passages it would follow
that Jefferson was one of the first exponents of the famous
policy of the balance of power. Although at war with England,
America could not wish for a complete defeat of her enemy
which would enable the monster to pursue his dreams of world
domination. But hateful as the Corsican was, no one could
wish for an English victory which would leave Great Britain
the undisputed ruler of the ocean. Incidents of the war did
wring from Jefferson impassioned outbursts which expressed a
temporary anger, but whenever he took time to weigh the differ-
ent factors in his mind, the realistic politician emerged every
time.

This appears clearly in his correspondence with Madame de
Stael, who had urged him on several occasions to make every
efiort to decide his fellow countrymen to join in the battle
against the oppressors of liberty. It appears also quite signifi-
cantly in his correspondence with Madison, following the
burning of the White House and the destruction by the English
soldiers of the first Congressional Library. His indignation

I To Thojnas Leiper, January x, 1814. Memorial Edition, XIV, 45.

’To John Clark, January 27, 1814. lUd., XIV, 79.

AMERICA HAS A HEMISPHERE 477

ran high when he learned “through the paper” that “the van-
dalism of our enemy has triumphed at Washington over science
as well as the arts, with the destruction of the public library
with the noble edifice in wMch it was deposited.” “Of that
transaction, as that of Copenhagen, the world will entertain
but one sentiment,” he wrote to Samuel H. Smith.^ But it
was characteristic of the man that he thought at once of the
means of restoring the library. Books could not be procured
easily from abroad and there was no other private library in
the country comparable to the collection of books he had
systematically accumulated for over forty years. He placed
his books at the disposal of Congress “ to be valued by persons
named by the Library Committee, and the payment made
convenient to the public.” This was not a piece of business
in order to retrieve his fortune, nor a disguised request for
financial help, but simply the act of a public-sph'ited citizen
unable to make an outright gift and yet unwilling to make any
profit on the public treasury.

The end of the war was in sight — a war which could be
considered as a draw, in which both sides had lost heavily and
neither had gained anything :

It is a deplorable misfortune to us. It has arrested the course of
the most remarkable tide of prosperity any nation ever experienced,
and has closed such prospects of future improvements as were never
before in the view of any people. Farewell all hopes of extinguish-
ing public debt ! Farewell aU visions of applying surpluses of
revenue to the improvement of peace, rather then the ravages of
war. Our enemy has indeed the consolation of Satan on removing
our first parents from Paradise ; from a peaceable and agricultural
nation, he makes us a military and manufacturing one. . . ?

It could truly be said that the war had failed. The best
that could be expected was the status ante helium. “Indemnity

' September 21, 1814. Memorial Edition, XIV, igi
® To William Short, November 28, 1814 Ilid., 3 CIV, 214.

478 THOMAS JEFFERSON

for the past and security for the future which was our motto
at the beginning of this war, must be adjourned to another,
when, disarmed and bankrupt our enemy shall be less able to
insult and plunder the world with impunity.” ^

The news that peace had been signed did not cause him any
elation, it was “in fact but an armistice”, and even when he
wrote again to his dear and ancient friend James Maury,
Jefferson was careful to note that America would never peace-
fully accept again England’s practice of impressment on the
high seas. “ On that point, ” he wrote, “we have thrown away
the scabbard and the moment an European war brings her
back to this practice, adds us again to her enemies.” ^

This was repeated in a letter to his old friend Du Pont de
Nemours who had asked him for his influence in order to send
his grandson to the Naval Academy :

For twenty years to come we should consider peace as the summum
bonum of our country. At the end of that period we shall be twenty
millions in number, and forty in energy, when encountering the
starved and rickety paupers and dwarfs of English workshops. By
that time your grandson will have become one of our High-Admirals,
and bear distinguished part in retorting the wrongs of both his
countries on the most implacable and crael of their enemies.®

Yet one would be mistaken in believing that Jefferson felt
against England any deep-seated animosity, and his resentment,
however justifiable, did not last long after the close of hostil-
ities. The fine friendly letters he wrote to Thomas Law and
James Maury at the eve of the war were more than mere ges-
tures. He had many friends in England, he was imbued with
English philosophy, English ideas, English law and, if he
detested the rulers and the regime, he always maintained the

1 To Cor^ de Serra, December 27, 1814. Memorial Edition, XIV, 221.

* To William H. Crawford, February 25, 1815. Ibid , XIV, 243, and June is, 1815.

Ibid., XIV, 31^.

• December i, 1813. Ibid., XIV, 369.

AMERICA HAS A HEMISPHERE 479

same sentimental and quite natural feelings of so many Ameri-
cans for the mother country as a whole ;

Were they once under a government which should treat us with
justice and equity — he wrote to John Adams — I should myself
feel with great strength the ties that bind us together, of origin,
language, laws and manners, and I am persuaded the two people
would become in future as it was with the ancient Greeks, among
whom it was reproachful for Greek to be found fighting against
Greek in a foreign army ^

On the same day he wrote to the Secretary of State, James
Monroe, about the proposed inscription to be engraved in a
conspicuous place on the restored Capitol, and he had suggested
that if any inscription was considered as necessary, it should
simply state the bare facts, such as :

FOUNDED 1791. BURNT BY A BRITISH ARMY
1814. RESTORED BY CONGRESS 1817.

But a question of more importance was whether there should be
any inscription at all. “The barbarism of the conflagration
will immortalize that of the nation .... We have more reason
to hate her than any nation in earth. But she is not now an
object of hatred .... It is for the interest of aU that she
should be maintained nearly on a par with other members
of the republic of nations.” *

With regard to France, his correspondence with Du Pont de
Nemours and Lafayette offers precious and significant testi-
mony. Much as he loathed Bonaparte, he deplored the return
of the Bourbons and the reactionary measures of the Restati-
ration. His indignation ran high when he received

. . . the new treaty of the allied powers, declaring that the
French nation shall not have Bonaparte and shall have Louis XVIII
as their ruler. They are all then as great rascals as Bonaparte him-

* October 16, 1816 Memorial Edition, XIV, 85.

^ October 16, 1816. Ibid., XVT, 80.

48o THOMAS JEFFERSON

self. While he was in the wrong, I wished him exactly as much
success as would answer our purpose, and no more. Now that they
are wrong and he in the right, he shall have all my prayers for
success, and that he may dethrone every man of them.^

Writing to Albert Gallatin he indulged in a “poetical effu-
sion” which shows how deeply his feelings were stirred ;

I grieve for France . . . and I trust they will finally establish for
themselves a government of rational and well tempered liberty. So
much science cannot be lost , so much light shed over them can never
fail to produce to them some good in the end. Till then, we may
ourselves fervently pray, with the liturgy a little parodied; Give
peace till that time, oh Lord, because there is none other that will
fight for us but only thee, oh God.®

When all was told, and it was realized that “the cannibals of
Europe were going to eating one another again and the pug-
nacious humor of mankind seemed to be the law of his nature”,
the only course for the United States to follow was to keep out
of the fray as much as possible and so to direct their policy as
to give no pretext for the European powers to intervene in the
New World.

Already, in 1812, Jefierson had formulated his views in the
most unequivocal manner, when he wrote to Doctor John
Crawford :

We specially ought to pray that the powers of Europe may be so
poised and counterpoised among themselves, that their own safety
may require the presence of aU their force at home, leaving the other
quarters of the globe in undisturbed tranquillity. When our strength
will permit us to give the law to our hemisphere, it should be that the
meridian of the mid-Atlantic should he the line of demarkation be-
tween war and peace, on this side of which no act of hostility should
be committed, and the lion and the lamb lie down in peace together.®

*To Thomas Leiper, June 14, 1815. Memorial Edition, XIV, 311; and. to John
Adams, August lo, i8is> IWrf-, XIV, 343.

® October 16, iSrs. Ibid., XIV, 355.

® January 3, 1812. Ibid., 'Kill, ny.

AMERICA HAS A HEMISPHERE 481

The progress of the revolt of the Spanish colonies was at
first to strengthen him in the position he had already taken.

Jefferson received the news without any elation. For a long
time he had known that the link between the Spanish and
Portuguese colonies was growing weaker. He doubted very
much, however, that the colonies were ready for self-govern-
ment. There might have been some hope for Mexico, because
of her proximity to the United States : “But the others, I fear,”
he wrote to Baron Alexander von Humboldt, “will end in mili-
tary despotisms. The different castes of their inhabitants,
their mutual hatred and jealousies, their profound ignorance
and bigotry, will be played off by cunning leaders, and each be
made the instrument of enslaving the others.” The important
point he made was in what followed, and Jefferson here in-
dulged in one of his curious political prophecies, in which
he so often hit the mark ;

But in whatever government they will end, they will be American
governments, no longer to be involved in the never-ceasing broils
of Europe. The European nations constitute a separate division
of the globe ; their localities make them part of a distinct system ;
they have a set of interests of their own in which it is our business
never to engage ourselves. America has a hemisphere to itself. It
must have its separate system of interests; which must not be
subordinated to those of Europe. The insulated state in which
nature has placed the American continent, should so far avail it
that no spark of war kindled in the other quarters of the globe
should be wafted across the wide oceans which separate us
from them and it will be so. In fifty years more the United States
alone will contain fifty millions of inhabitants, and fifty years are
soon gone over. . . . And you will live to see the period ahead of
us; and the numbers which will then be spread over the other
parts of the American hemisphere, catching long before that the
principles of our portion of it, and concurring with us in the main-
tainance of the same system.^

* December 6, 1813. Memorial Edition, XTV, 22.

482 THOMAS JEFFERSON

For the present the situation was entirely different — and as
he had done during the Revolution with regard to France, he
advocated prudence and slowness. It was one thing lor the
American colonies to engage in a war with the mother country
in order to preserve the liberties they had hitherto enjoyed,
and again it was another entirely different thing for people
who had not the faintest experience of self-government to de-
clare their independence and suddenly to sever all connections
with the past. In addition he was fully aware that the new
republics would be in no condition to fight off foreign aggressors
and thus would become an easy prey for the unscrupulous and
greedy nations of Europe. Unable to stand on their own feet,
the most natural course for South America was to fall back on
Spain. Jefferson did not visualize the “foris familiaiion” of
the colonies without a sort of moral protectorate of the mother
country: “if she extends to them her affection, her aid, her
patronage in every court and country, it will weave a bond of
union indissoluble by time.” ^ At the time Jefferson did not go
further, and as a matter of fact he long held that this would have
been the best solution for South America. As late as January,
1821, he stiff maintained this opinion in a letter to John Adams ;

The safest road would be an accomodation to the mother country
which shall hold them together by the single link of the same chief
magistrate, leaving to him power enough to keep them in peace
with one another, and to themselves the essential power of self-
government and self-improvement, until they will be sufficiently
trained by education and habits of freedom to walk safely by them-
selves. Representative government, native functionaries, a quali-
fied negative on their laws, with a previous security by compact for
freedom of commerce, freedom of the press, habeas corpus, and trial
by jury, would make a good bc^ning. This last would be the
school in which their people might begin to learn the exercise of

'■ Tq Don Valentino de Torunda Corunda, December r4, 1813. Memorial Edition.
XIV, 31.

AMERICA HAS A HEMISPHERE 483

civic duties as well as rights. For freedom of religion they are not
yet prepared.^

This was the ideal solution, but “ the question was not what
we wish, but what is practicable.” If consequently the new
republics refused such a compromise, another alternative could
be offered :

As their sincere friend and brother, I do believe the best thing for
them, would be for themselves to come to an accord with Spain,
under the guarantee of France, Russia, Holland, and the United
States, allowing to Spain a nominal supremacy, with authority only
to keep the peace among them, leaving them otherwise all the powers
of self-government, until their experience in them, their emancipa-
tion from their priests, and advancement in information shall prepare
them for complete independence. I exclude England from this con-
federacy, because her selfish principles render her incapable of
honorable patronage or disinterested co-operation; unless indeed,
what seems now probable, a revolution should restore to her an
honest government, one which will permit the world to live in peace.^

This is a capital passage for it contains in germ much more
than the so-called Monroe Doctrine. What Jefferson had in
mind at the time was evidently a society of nations, which the
United States would have joined in order to guarantee the
territorial integrity of the South American republics under a
Spanish mandate. For Brazil alone he contemplated a real
and immediate independence, for “Brazil is more populous,
more wealthy, and as wise as Portugal.”

But in Jefferson’s mind this plan was only a temporary solu-
tion. He was firmly convinced that a time would necessarily
come when all the American republics would be drawn together
by their community of interests and institutions and coalescing
in an American system, independent from and unconnected
with that of Europe, would form a world by themselves :

^ To John Adams, January 22, 1812. Memorial Edition, XV, 3og.

“ To Lafayette, May 14, 1817. Ihid., XV, 117.

484 THOMAS JEFFERSON

“The principles of society there and here, then, are radically
different and I hope no American patriot will ever lose sight of
the essential policy of interdicting in the seas and territories of
both Americas the ferocious and sanguinary contests of Europe.
I wish to see this coalition begun.” ^

Such, according to Jefferson, was to be the cardinal principle
of American policies for all times to come; for, as he wrote
to his friend Correa who had come back to the United States as
Minister from Portugal :

Nothing is so important as that America shall separate herself
from the system of Europe, and establish one of her own — Our
circumstances, our pursuits, our interests, are distinct, the principles
of our policy should be so also. All entanglements with that quarter
of the globe should be avoided that peace and justice shall be the
polar stars of American societies.^

On the other hand, it was not advisable for the United States
to intervene directly in South America or to help the colonies
to sever their bonds from the metropolis. There is little doubt
that the Spanish colonics would never have thought of revolting
if they had not had constantly before their eyes the example of
their northern neighbors. lU-conducted as they were, the
revolutions of South America could trace their origin directly
to the American revolution and the Declaration of Independ-
ence. It was so plain that Jefferson’s French friends, Lafayette,
Du Pont de Nemours, and Destutt de Tracy expected him to
declare enthusiastically in favor of the South American republics
and to use whatever influence he still had to bring about an
open intervention of the United States in their favor. Their
optimism only shows how little they knew their American friend
and how little they understood his policy. To Destutt de
Tracy he answered at the end of 1820 :

1 To W. Short, August 4, 1820. Memorial Edition, XV, 263.

* October 24, tSzo. /W,, XY, 28s.

AMERICA HAS A HEMISPHERE 485

We go with you all lengths in friendly affections to the independ-
ence of S. America, but an immediate aclaiowledgement of it calls
up other considerations. We view Europe as covering at present a
smothered fire, which may shortly burst forth and produce general
conflagration. From this it is our duty to keep aloof. A formal
acknowledgement of the independence of her colonies, would involve
us with Spain certainly, and perhaps too with England, if she thinks
that a war would divert her internal troubles. Such a war would
hurt us more than it would help our brethren of the South ; and our
right may be doubted of mortgaging posterity for the expenses of a
war in which they will have a right to say their interest was not
concerned. ... In the meantime we receive and protect the dag of
S. America in it’s commercial intercourse with us, on the acknowl-
edged principles of neutrality between two belligerent parties in a civil
war ; and if we should not be the first, we shall certainly be the second
nation in acknowledging the entire independence of our new friends.'

This Jefferson pressed again even more tersely in a letter
written to Monroe almost four years later. “We feel strongly
for them, but our first care must be for ourselves.” ^

Surveying the whole situation from the “mountain-top”
of Monticello, the plnlosopher wondered at times “whether all
nations do not owe to one another a bold declaration of their
sympathy with the one party and their detestation of the con-
duct of the other?” But he soon concluded : “Farther than
this we are not bound to go; and indeed, for the sake of the
world, we ought not to increase the jealousies or draw on our-
selves the power of this formidable confederacy.” After the
treaty of Ghent, at the beginning of the “era of good feeling”,
the United States could reasonably count on a long period of
peace ; all their difficulties with Europe had been settled, and
only one possible point of friction could be discovered. “ Cuba
alone seems at present to hold up a speck of war to us. Its

' Jefierson Papers. Library of Congress. December 26, 1820, and Chinajrd, “ Jefier-
Bon et les Ideologues.” Paris, Baltimore, 1925, p. 203.

’ lefierson Papers. Library of Congress, July 18, 1824.

486 THOMAS JEFFERSON

possession by Great Britain would indeed be a great calamity
to the United States ; but such calamity could only be tempo-
rary, for in case of war on any account, Cuba would be naturally
taken by the United States, or the island would give itself to us,
when able to do so.”

Thus Jefferson, once again, reasserted the cardinal principle
of his policy — the policy of the United States since the early
days of the Union :

I have ever deemed it fundamental for the United States, never
to take active part in the quarrels of Europe. Their political
interests are entirely distinct from ours. Their mutual jealousies,
their balance of power, their complicated alliances, their forms and
principles of government are all foreign to us. They are nations of
eternal war. AU their energies are expended in the destruction of
the labor, property, and lives of their peoples ... on our part, never
had a people so favorable a chance of trying the opposite system, of
peace and fraternity with mankind, and the direction of our means
and faculties to the purposes of improvement instead of destruction.^

Thus, little by little, the famous doctrine took its final shape
in the minds of both Jefferson and Monroe. Jefferson contrib-
uted to it its historical backgroxmd, the weight of his experi-
ence and authority, and the long conversations he had with
Monroe on the matter gave him an opportunity not only to
get “his political compass rectified” but to map out for the
President the course to foUow. The often quoted letter written
by Jefferson to Monroe on October 24, 1823, contained little
more than what had passed between them when Monroe visited
his estate in Virginia. It was simply a reaffirmation of the
fundamental maxims of the Jeffersonian policies : — “never to
entangle ourselves in the broils of Europe — never to suffer
Europe to intermeddle with cis-Atlantic affairs.”

After making a survey of all the circumstances, Jefferson
could write in conclusion ;

' To Monroe, June xi, 1833 Memorial Edition, XV, 453,

AMERICA HAS A HEMISPHERE 487

I could honestly, therefore, join in the declaration proposed, that
we aim not at the acquisition of any of those possessions, that we
will not stand in the way of any amicable arrangement between them
and the Mother country, but that we will oppose, with all our
means, the forcible interposition of any other form or pretext, and
most especially, their transfer to any power by conquest, cession, or
acquisition in any other way.

Finally, although the letters to be exchanged between the
British and American governments did not properly constitute
a treaty, Jefferson advised Monroe to lay the case before Con-
gress at the first opportunity, since this doctrine might lead
to war, “the declaration of which requires an act of Congress.”

Whatever use has been made of the Monroe Doctrine and
whether or not the “mandate” assumed by the United States
has proved irksome to several South American republics, there
is no doubt that it was not proclaimed without long hesitation
and that its promoters did not take up this new responsibility
with ccBur Uger.” There is no doubt, either, that it was
not considered as an instrument of imperialism. It was prima-
rily the extension of the doctrine of self-protection already
advanced by John Adams in 1776 and since then maintained
by Washington and Jefferson himself. It was also a corollary
of the theory of the balance of power which Jefferson always
kept in mind. In this he was not only followed but urged on
by all his liberal friends in Europe.

I would not be sorry — wrote Lafayette in 1817 — to see the
American government invested by the follies of Spain, with the op-
portunity to take the lead in the affairs of her independent colonies.
Unless that is the case or great changes happen in the European
policies, the miseries of those fine countries will be long protracted.
Could you establish there a representative system, a free trade, and
a free press, how many channels of information and improvement
should be open at once.^

1 Jefierson Papers. Library of Congress. December lo, 1817.

488 T II 0 A S JEFFERSON

Jefferson himself was too respectful of self-government ever
to think of interfering with the inteinal affairs of the new
republics. On the other hand, he was too firmly convinced of
the moral, intellectual and political superiority of his own
country not to believe that a time would come when the con-
tagion of liberty would extend to the near and remote neigh-
bors of the United States. The unavoidable result of the
Monroe Doctrine and the moral mandate of America would be
ultimately to form a “Holy American Alliance” of the free
peoples of the Western Flemisphere, to counterbalance the
conspiracy of Kings and Lords “called the European Holy
Alliance.”

CHAPTER II

DEMOCRATIC AMERICA

Protected against foreign entanglements and having sur-
vived the convulsions that had shattered the old structures of
Europe, America was at last free to pursue her development
along her own lines. The philosopher of Monticello could sit
back, take a moie disinterested view of the situation and make
a forecast of the future of his country. He could also advise,
not only his immediate successors, but the generations to come
and take up again the part of “counsellor” which had always
suited hun better than the part of the executive. He believed
too much in the right of successive generations to determine
their own form of government, to attempt to dictate in any way
the course to follow. But he was none the less convinced that
certain principles embodied in the Constitution had a perma-
nent and universal value, and during the years at Monticello
he formulated the gospel of American democracy.

As it finally emerged from the several crises that threatened
its existence, the American Government was, if not the best
possible government, at least the best government then on the
surface of the earth. It was at the same time the hope and the
model of all the nations of the world.

We exist and are quoted — wrote Jefferson to Richard Rush — as
standing proofs that a government, so modelled as to rest continu-
ously on the will of the whole society, is a practicable government.
Were we to break to pieces, it would damp the hopes and efforts of
the good, and give triumph to those of the bad through the whole
enslaved world As members, therefore, of the universal society of
mankind, and standing high in responsible relation with them, it is

490 THOMAS JEFFERSON

our sacred duty to suppress passion among ourselves and not to
blast the confidence we have inspired of proof that a government of
reason is better than a government of force ^

Some dangers, however, were threatening to disturb the
equilibrium of the country. The most pressing was perhaps
the extraordinary and unwholesome development of State and
local banks, which suspended payment in great majority in
September, 1814. The deluge of paper money and the depre-
ciation of the currency became, for Jefferson, a real obsession and
strengthened him in his abhorrence of commercialism. He did
not cease to preach the necessity of curbing the fever of specu-
lation that had accumulated ruins upon ruins and the return
to more sound regulations of the banks. “Till then,” he wrote
to John Adams, “we must be content to return, quoad hoc, to the
savage state, to recur to barter in the exchange of our property,
for want of a stable, common measure of value, that now in use
being less fixed than the beads and wampum of the Indians.” ^

His banking theories, however, had scarcely any influence
upon his contemporaries, and even Gallatin was little impressed
by them. But the evident danger of inflation turned his mind
back to the days when he had fought the Hamiltonian system
and gave him once more an opportunity to pass judgment upon
his opponent of the old days :

This most heteregeneous system was transplanted into ours from
the British system, by a man whose mind was really powerful, but
chained by native partialities to everything English; who had
formed exaggerated ideas of the superior wisdom of their govern-
ment, and sincerely believed it for the good of the country to make
them their model in everything, without considering that what
might be wise and good for a nation essentially commercial and
entangled in complicated intercourse with numerous and powerful

' October 20, 1820. Memorial Edition, XV, 284,

® About the economic and banking theories of Jefferson, I can only indicate here
some points more fuUy treated in. my book on “ Jefierson et les Ideologues.’* Paris,
Baltimore, 1925.

DEMOCRATIC AMERICA 491

neighbors, might not be so for one essentially agricultural, and in-
sulated by nature, from the abusive governments of the old worldd

From this and many other passages it might be surmised
that Jefferson still held to the old antimercantile theories
that had crystallized in his mind when he was in Europe. If
this were true, the contradiction between his conduct as Presi-
dent and his personal convictions would be so obvious that his
sincerity might be ciuestioned. As a matter of fact, on this
point as on many others, he had undergone a slow evolution.
He was certainly sincere when, shortly after leaving ofiSce, he
wrote to Governor John Jay in order to make his position
clearer :

An equilibrium of agriculture, manufacture, and commerce, is
certainly become essential to our independence. Manufactures,
sufficient for our own consumption (and no more). Commerce
sufficient to carry the surplus produce of agriculture, beyond our own
consumption, to a market for exchanging it for articles we cannot
raise (and no more) These are the true limits of manufacture and
commerce. To go beyond is to increase our dependence on foreign
nations, and our liability to war.^

This can be taken as the final view of Jefferson on a subject
on which he is often misquoted and misunderstood. That he
was fully aware of the change that had taken place in his own
mind can be seen in a declaration to Benjamin Austin, written
in January, 1816, Between 1787 and that date, and even
earlier, Jefferson had seen the light and realized that to dis-
courage home manufactures was “to keep us in eternal vassal-
age to a foreign and unfriendly people.” He had no patience
with politicians who brought forth his old and now obsolete
utterances to promote their unpatriotic designs :

You tell me I am quoted by those who wish to continue our
dependance on England for manufactures. There was a time when

'To William H. Crawford, June 20, 1816. Memorial Edition, XV, 27.

® April 7, 1S09. lUd., XII, 271,

492

THOMAS JEFFERSON

I might have been so quoted with more candor, but within the thirty
years which have elapsed, how circumstances changed. . . . Ex-
perience since has taught me that manufactures are now as necessary
to our independence as to our comfort ; and if those who quote me
as of different opinion will keep pace with me in purchasing nothing
foreign where an equivalent of domestic fabric can be obtained,
without regard to the difference of price, it will not be our fault if we
do not soon have a supply at home equivalent to our demand.^

Desirable as it was to promote the industrial development of
the United States, it was no less desirable not to encourage it
beyond a certain point. Jefferson saw quite clearly that, under
existing conditions, a great industrial growth of the country
would have as an unavoidable result the perpetuation of slavery
in the South and the even more undesirable creation of a pro-
letariat in the North. He had always held that slavery was a
national sore and a shameful condition to be remedied as soon
as conditions would permit. He was looking forward to the
time when this could be done without bringing about an eco-
nomic upheaval ; but all hope would have to be abandoned if
slavery were industrialized and if slave labor became more
productive. As to the other danger of industrialism, it was no
vague apprehension ; one had only to consider England to see
“ the pauperism of the lowest class, the abject oppression of the
laboring, and the luxury, the riot, the domination and the
vicious happiness of the aristocracy.” This being the “hap-
piness of scientific England”, he wrote to Thomas Cooper,
“now let us see the American side of the medal” :

And, first, we have no paupers, the old and crippled among us,
who possess nothing and have no families to take care of them, being
too few to merit notice as a separate section of society, or to affect a
general estimate. The great mass of our population is of laborers ;
our rich, who can live without labor, either manual or professional,
being few, and of moderate wealth. Most of the laboring class

‘ January 9, 1816 Memorial Edition, XIV, 387.

DEMOCRATIC AMERICA 493

possess property, cultivate their own lands, have families, and from
the demand for their labor are enabled to exact from the rich and
the competent such prices as enable them to be fed abundantly,
clothed above mere decency, to labor moderately and raise their
families. They are not driven to the ultimate resources of dexterity
and skill, because their wares will sell although not quite so nice as
those of England. The wealthy, on the other hand, and those at
their ease, know nothing of what the Europeans call luxury. They
have only somewhat more of the comforts and decencies of life than
those who furnish them. Can any condition of society be more
desirable than this ? ^

Once more Jefferson appears as a true disciple and continuator
of the Physiocrats and one might be tempted at first to agree
entirely with Mr. Beard on this point. But this is only an
appearance. To understand Jefferson’s true meaning, it is
necessary to turn to his unpublished correspondence with Du
Pont de Nemours.^

The rapid industrialization of the United States had greatly
alarmed the old Physiocrat. In his opinion there was a real
danger lest the national character of the people be completely
altered and the foundation of government deeply shaken.
Considering the situation from the “economist’s ’’point of view,
Du Pont came to the conclusion that the development of home
industries in America would necessarily bring about a perma-
nent reduction in the Federal income, largely derived from
import duties. The government could not be run without
levying new taxes and the question was to deter m i n e what
methods should be followed in the establishment of these new
taxes. If the United States decided to resort to indirect tax-
ation, that is to say, excise, the unavoidable result would be
the creation of an army of new functionaries, as in France under
the old regime, and the use of vexatory procedure for the en-

To Itiomaa Cooper, September 10, x8i4. Memorial Edition, XIV, 175.

® See my introduction to their correspondence. Baltimore, 1931.

494

THOMAS JEFFERSON

forcement of the new system. Furtheimore, according to the
theories of the Physiocrats, indirect taxation was an economic
heresy, since it was a tax on labor, which is not a source but only
a transformation of wealth. The same criticism applied a
fortiori to the English income tax which constituted the worst
possible form of taxation.

In the controversy which arose between Jefferson and his old
friend, the Sage of Monticello again took a middle course-
First of aU, he refused to concede that the development of
industries could ever change the fundamental characteristics
of the United States They were essentially an agricultural
nation, and an agricultural nation they would remain, in spite
of all predictions to the contrary. Furthermore, the question
was not to determine theoretically what was the best possible
form of taxation, but to find out what form the inhabitants of
the country would most easily bear. That in itself was a big
enough problem and could not be solved in the abstract, since,
according to Jefferson : “In most of the middle and Southern
States some land tax is now paid into the State treasury, and
for this purpose the lands have been classed and valued and the
tax assessed according to valuation. In these an excise is most
odious. In the Eastern States, land taxes are odious, excises
less unpopular.” ^

Finally, Jefferson pointed out that his friend had neglected
several important factors, one of them being “the continuous
growth in population of the United States, which for a long time
would maintain the quantum of exports and imports at the
present level at least.” Consequently, for several generations,
the Government would be able to support itself with a tax on
importations, “the best agrarian law in fact, since the poor
man in the country who uses nothing but what is made within
his own farm or family, or within the United States, pays not
a farthing of tax to the general government.” With the char-

1 Jeffeison Papers. Library of Congress. April ij, i8ii,

DEMOCRATIC AMERICA 495

acterislic optimism of the citizen of a young, strong and ener-
getic country, Jefferson then added ;

Our revenue once liberated by the discharge of public debt and
its surplus applied to canals, roads, schools, etc., and the farmer will
see his government supported, his children educated, and the face of
his country made a paradise by the contributions of the rich alone
without being called on to spare a cent from his earnings. The
path we are now pursuing leads directly to this end, which we cannot
fail to attain unless our administration should fall into unwise hands.^

This point alone should suffice to differentiate Jefferson’s
system from physiocracy, since the Physiocrats had adopted
as their motto the famous laissez fake laissez passer and were
certainly in favor of free trade. How far from Du Pont Jeffer-
son remained in other particulars may be gathered from his
"Introduction” and notes to the "Political Economy” of
Destutt de Tracy, the translation and publication of which he
supervised and directed. In it he paid homage to the founders
of the science of political economy, and particularly to Gournay,
Le Trosne and Du Pont de Nemours, "the enlightened,
philanthropic and venerable citizen, now of the United States.”
But he pointed out that the several principles they had dis-
cussed and established had not been able to prevail, " not on
account of their correctness, but because not acceptable to the
people whose will must be the supreme law. Taxation is, in
fact, the most difficult function of the government, and that
against which their citizens are most apt to be refractory. The
general aim is, therefore, to adopt the mode most consonant
with the circumstances and sentiments of the country.”

This is Jefferson’s final judgment on the Economists.
Another confirmation of his lack of interest in principles and
theories not susceptible of immediate application may be seen
in it. In matters of government, the important question, after

Jefferson Papers. Library of Congress. April 15, iSit.

496 THOMASJEFFERSON

deciding what should be done, was to determine how much
could be done under the circumstances, and if a particular
piece of legislation was turned down by the pubhc will or only
reluctantly accepted, to bide one’s time and wait for a more
favorable occasion. Even when doubting the wisdom of a
popular verdict, it was the duty of the public servant to do the
public will. Thus in this correspondence are revealed the
two sides of Jefferson’s character, or to speak more exactly,
the two parallel tracks in which his mind ran at different times.

At the bottom of his heart, he believed that many of the
economic doctrines of Du Pont were fundamentally sound;
but he also knew that the citizens of the United States were not
ready to accept the truth of these principles, and he did not
feel that, as an executive, he had the right to attempt to shape
the destinies of his country according to his own preferences.
Thus he laid himself open to the reproach of insincerity, or at
least of inconsistency, for on many occasions one may find a
flagrant contradiction between his public utterances and the
private letters he wrote to his friends. For this reason, Du
Pont de Nemours was never fully able to understand his Ameri-
can friend. This difference between the French theorician and
the American statesman will appear even more clearly in the
letters in which they exchanged views on democracy and dis-
cussed the conditions requisite for the establishment of a repre-
sentative government.

Jefferson’s opinion of the French people with regard to the
form of government they should adopt had never varied since
the earliest days of the Revolution. Every time he was con-
sulted by his friends on the matter, he invariably answered
that they could do no better than to follow as closely as possible
the system of their neighbors and hereditary enemies, the
British. This answer, which recurred periodically in his cor-
respondence, was made particularly emphatic in i8or, when he
again warned Lafayette that France was not ready to enjoy a

DEMOCRATIC AMERICA 497

truly republican government. He went on by categorically
stating that what was good for America might be very harmful
to another country and that even in America it was neither
desirable nor possible to enforce at once all the provisions of
the Constitution. Thus, in a few lines, he defined his policies
more clearly than any historian has ever done; he analyzed
that curious combination of unwavering principles and prac-
tical expediency so puzzling to those once called by Jefferson
himself “the closet politicians.”

What is practicable — he said — must often control what is purely
theory and the habits of the governed determine in a great degree
what is practicable. The same original principles, modified in prac-
tice to the different habits of the different nations, present govern-
ments of very different aspects. The same principles reduced to
form of practice, accommodated to our habits, and put into forms
accommodated to the habits of the French nation would present
governments very unlike each other.’

Thirteen years later his opinion had not varied one iota.
Reviewing the situation in France after the return of the Bour-
bons, he wrote to Du Pont de Nemours :

I have to congratulate you, which I do sincerely, on having got
back from Robespierre and Bonaparte, to your ante-revolutionary
condition. You are now nearly where you were at the Jeu de
Paume, on the 20th of June 1789. The Ring would then have
yielded by convention freedom of religion, freedom of the press,
trial by jury, habeas corpus and a representative legislation. These
I consider as the essentials constituting free government, and that
the organization of the executive is interesting, as it may ensure wis-
dom and integrity in the first place, but next as it may favor
or endanger the preservation of these fundamentals.^

The same note reappears constantly in the letters written by
Jefferson to his French friends, but a rapid survey of his corre-

Jefferson Papers. Library of Congress. January i8, 1802.

“ Ihid February 28, 1815,

498 THOMAS JEFFERSON

spondence with Du Pont de Nemours may serve to make his
position even more definite.

When, in December, 1815, Du Pont was invited by “the
republics of New Grenada, Carthagenes and Caracas” to give
his views on the constitution they intended to adopt, he drew
up a plan of government for the “Equinoctial republics” and
sent it for approval to the Sage of Monticello. Faithful to the
principles of the Physiocrats, he had divided the population
into two classes : the real citizens or landowners and the ‘ ‘ inhab-
itants”, those who work for a salary, possess nothing but per-
sonal property, can go any day from one place to another, and
make with their employers contracts which they can break at
any time. These were entitled to protection, peaceful enjoy-
ment of their personal property, free speech, freedom of religion,
habeas corpus, and such natural rights, but Du Pont refused
them any participation in the government ; for only those who
“owned the country” should have the right to decide how it
was to be administered. To give the ballot to a floating popu-
lation of industrial workers, unattached to the soil, who had
nothing to sell except their labor, was “to brew a revolution, to
pave the way for the Pisistrates, the Marius, the Caesars, who
represent themselves as more democratic than they really are
and than is just and reasonable, in order to become tyrants, to
violate all rights, to substitute for law their arbitrary will, to
offend morality and to debase humanity.” ^

This was a doctrine which Jefferson could not accept, for it
was in direct contradiction to the tenets he had formulated
early in his life and held to during all his career. B ecause he had
read Locke, and more probably because he was trained as a
lawyer, he opposed the contractual theory of society to this
economic organization. He maintained that society was a
compact, that all those who had become signatories to the
compact were entitled to the same rights, and consequently

' JeSeison Papers. Library ot Congress. December is, 1815.

DEMOCRATIC AMERICA

49 £

should have the same privilege to share equally in the govern-
ment, except, and this proviso was important, when they
freely agreed to delegate part of their powers to elected magis-
trates and representatives.

This was the theory, the inalienable principle to be pro-
claimed in a bill of rights, the necessary preamble to any con-
stitution. In practice, however, various limitations to universal
suffrage were to be recognized. One could not even think of
granting the ballot to minors, to emancipated slaves or to
women. It did not follow either that, aU citizens being
endowed with the same rights, they were equally ready to
exercise the same functions in the government. Men are
created equal in rights but differ in intelligence, learning,
clear-sightedness and general ability. In other words, there
are some natural aristoi, and John Adams brought Jefferson to
this admission without any difficulty. If this fact be accepted,
the next step is to recognize that “that form of government is
the best, which provided the most effectually for a pure selec-
tion of these natural aristoi into offices of the government.”
It was the good fortune of America that aU her constitutions
were so worded as “to leave the citizens the free election and
separation of the aristoi from the pseiido-aristoi, of the
wheat from the chaff. In general, they will elect the reaUy
good and wise. In some instances, wealth may corrupt,
and birth blind; but not in a sufficient degree to endanger
society.” ^

According to this theory, the real function of the people is not
to participate directly in aU governmental activities, but to
select from among themselves the most qualified citizens and
the best prepared to administer the country. In a letter to
Doctor Walter Jones, who had sent him a paper on democracy,
Jefferson made his position even more definite by establishing
a very important distinction which gives more than any other

1 October 28, 1813. Memorial Edition, XIII, 396.

500

THOMAS JEFFERSON

statement his true idea of a progressive democracy — an ideal
to be striven for, not a condition already reached :

I would say that the people, being the only safe depository of
power, should exercise in person every function which their qualifica-
tions enable them to exercise, consistently with the order and
security of society ; that we now find them equal to the election of
those who shall be invested with their executive powers, and to act
themselves in the judiciary, as judges in questions of fact ; that
the range of their powers ought to be enlarged. . .

In these circumstances, Jefferson’s reluctance to encourage
both his French and Spanish friends to establish at once a
government modeled on the American government in their
respective countries, is perfectly intelligible. Of all the nations
of the earth, England alone could “borrow wholesale the Ameri-
can system.”

They will probably turn their eyes to us, and be disposed to tread
in the footsteps, seeing how safely these have led us into port.
There is no part of or model to which they seem unequal, unless
perhaps the elective presidency, and even that might possibly be
rescued from the tumult of the elections, by subdividing the electoral
assemblage into very small parts, such as of wards or townships,
and making them simultaneous.®

As for the other nations, they were no more qualified to
exercise the duties of a truly representative government than
were the inhabitants of New Orleans at the time of the pur-
chase. The French, in particular, had proved in several
instances that they could not be intrusted with the adminis-
tration of their own affairs.

More than a generation will be requisite — he wrote to Lafayette
— under the administration of reasonable laws favoring tlie progress
of knowlege in the general mass of the people, and their habituation
to an independent security of person and property, before they will

1 January 2, 1814. Memorial Edition, XIV, 46.

* To John Adams, October 16, 1816, Ibid., XVI, 8$,

DEMOCRATIC AMERICA 501

be capable of estimating the value of freedom, and the necessity of
sacred adherence to the principles on which it rests for preservation.
Instead of that liberty which takes root and growth in the progress
of reason, if recovered by mere accident or force, it becomes, with an
unprepared people, a tyranny still, of the many, the few, or one.^

From these declarations, to which many other similar pas-
sages could be added, a capital difference between the idealism of
Jefferson and the idealism of the French philosophers becomes
quite obvious. The author of the Declaration of Independence
had proclaimed that all men are born free and equal, but he
never thought that women, Indians and newly enfranchized
slaves should be admitted to the same rights and privileges as
the other citizens. In like fashion, although representative
government remains the best possible form of government, he
found it desirable that some people, who are stiff children,
should not be granted at once the full enjoyment of their natu-
ral rights. Thus self-government, which had become a well
established fact and a reality in America, should remain for
other peoples a reward to be obtained after a long and painful
process of education. It could be hoped that some day, after
many disastrous experiments and much suffering, the peoples
of Europe and South America might deserve the blessings
enjoyed by the American people. But nothing was further
from the character of Jefferson than to preach the gospel of
Americanism to all the nations of the world. Instead of con-
sidering as desirable a close imitation of the American Con-
stitution by the newly liberated nations, he maintained that
each people should mold their institutions according to their
own habits and traditions. Far from being a Jacobin, a wild
radical, or a “closet philosopher”, this practical politician had
come to the conclusion that each people have the government
they deserve, and that durable improvements can come only
as a result of the improvement of the moral qualities of every

' To Lafayette, Februaiy 14, 1815. Memorial Edition, XIV, 245.

502 THOMAS JEFFERSON

citizen — from within and not from without. Such a moderate
conclusion may surprise those who are accustomed to damn or
praise Jefferson on a few sentences or axioms detached from
their context; but, after careful scrutiny of the evidence, it
seems difficult to accept any other interpretation.

Comparatively perfect as it was, the government of the
United States presented certain germs of weakness, corruption
and degeneracy. The Sage of Monticello did not fail to call his
friends’ attention to some of the dangers looming up on the
horizon. As he had warned them against inflation, he opposed
the formation of societies which might become so strong as “to
obstruct the operation of the government and undertake to
regulate the foreign, fiscal, and military as well as domestic
affairs.” This might be taken already as a warning against
lobbying. He was fully aware that a time might come when
the speeches of the Senators and Representatives “would cease
to be read at all” and when the Legislature would not enjoy the
full confidence of the people. He deplored the law vacating
nearly all the offices of government nearly every four years, for
“it will keep in constant excitement all the hungry cormorants
for office, render them as well as those in place sycophants to
their Senators, engage in eternal intrigue to turn out and put in
another, in cabale to swap work, and make of them what all
executive directories become, mere sinks of corruption and
faction,” ^

Serious and pressing as these dangers were, they could be
left to future generations to avoid, but at the very moment he
wrote another fear obsessed his mind :

The banks, bankrupt laws, manufactures, Spanish treaty are
nothing. These are occurrences which, like waves in a storm, will
pass under the ship. But the Missouri question is a breaker on
which we lose the Missouri country by revolt, and what more God
only knows. From the Battle of Bunker’s Hill to the treaty of
1 To James Madison, November 29, 1820. Memorial Edition, XV, 295.

DEMOCRATIC AMERICA

S03

Paris, we never had so ominous a question ... I thank God that I
shall not live to witness its issue.^

No New Englander had done more to promote the cause of
abolition than Jefierson; on two occasions he had proposed
legislative measures to put an end to the scourge of slavery and
he had never ceased to look for a solution that would permit
the emancipation of the slaves without endangering the racial
integrity of the United States. But this was no longer a ques-
tion of humanity. What mattered most was not whether
slavery would be recognized in Missouri or not. Slavery had
become a political question ; it had created a geographical
division between the States, and the very existence of the Union
was at stake. As on so many other occasions, the old states-
man had a truly prophetic vision of the future when he wrote to
John Adams early in 1820 :

If Congress has the power to regulate the conditions of the inhab-
itants of the States, within the States, it will be but another exercise
of that power to declare that all shah be free. Are we then to see
again Athenian and Lacedemonian confederacies ? To wage another
Peloponesian war to settle the ascendency between them? Or is
this the tocsin of merely a servile war ? That remains to be seen ;
but not, I hope, by you or me.’*

The whole question was fraught with such difficulties that
Jefferson refused to discuss the abolition of slavery with
Lafayette when the Marquis paid him a last visit at Monticello.
With his American friends he was less reserved. When, as
early as 1811, James Ogilvie asked him to suggest an important
and interesting subject for a series of lectures he intended to
deliver in the Southern States, Jefierson could think of nothing
more momentous than a discourse “on the benefit of the union,
and miseries which would follow a separation of the States,
to be exemplified in the eternal and wasting wars of Europe,

^ December lo, x8ig. Memorial Edition, XV, 233.

“ To John Adams, January 22, 1821, Ibid., XV, 309.

504

THOMAS JEFFERSON

in the pillage and profligacy to which these lead, and the
abject oppression and degradation to which they reduce its
inhabitants.” ^

Jefferson has so long been represented as the champion of
State rights, he stood so vigorously against all possible encroach-
ments of the States’ sovereignty by the Federal Government,
that we have a natural tendency to forget this aspect of his
policies and to see in him only the man who inspired the Ken-
tucky resolutions. It must be remembered, however, that he
never ceased to preach the necessity of the union to his fellow
countr3nnen, that when President he lived in a constant fear of
secession by the New England States, that he stopped all his
efforts in favor of abolition lest he should inject into the life of
the country a political issue which might disrupt national unity.
While he claimed that theoretically the States had a right to
secede, he could no more consider actual secession than he would
have approved of any man breaking the social compact in order
to live the precarious life of the savage.

From these dangers nothing could preserve the United States
except what Du Pont de Nemours called once “the cool com-
mon sense” of their citizens. It was the only foundation on
which to rest all hopes for the future, for American democracy
is not a thing which exists on paper, it is not a thing which can
be created overnight by law, decree or constitution, it is not
to be looked for in any document. “Where is our republicanism
to be found,” wrote Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval. “Not
in our constitution certainly, but merely in the spirit of our
people. Owing to this spirit, and to nothing in the form of our
constitution all things have gone well.” ®

One of the most reassuring manifestations of this spirit was
seen in the willingness of the people to choose the best qualified
persons as their representatives, executives and magistrates.

‘August4, i8ii. Memorial Edition, Xni, 68.

* July 12, i8i6. Ibid., XV, 33.

DEMOCRATIC AMERICA

50s

But if the Republic was to endure, it was necessary to enlighten
and cultivate the disposition of the people, and it was no less
important to provide a group of men qualified through their
natural ability and training, to discuss and conduct the affairs
of the community. Thus Jefferson was induced to take up
again in his old days one of his pet schemes, the famous bill for
the diffusion of knowledge.

As a matter of fact, he had never abandoned it completely,
and its very purpose had been explained already in the “Notes
on Virginia” :

In every government on earth there is some trace of human weak-
ness, some germ of corruption and degeneracy. . . . Each govern-
ment degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone.
The people themselves are therefore its only safe depositories. And
to render even them safer, their minds must be improved to a certain
degree. This is not all that is necessary, though it be essentially
necessary.

During his stay in Europe, Jefferson had become acquainted
with great universities, particularly those of Edinburgh and
Geneva, and after coming back to America he shifted some-
what the emphasis. It was not so immediately necessary to
improve the minds of aU the citizens as to form an a body
of specialists who might become the true leaders of the nation.
This seems to have been the object of his plan, to bring over to
America the whole faculty of the University of Geneva to estab-
lish a national university at Richmond or in the vicinity of
Federal City. This scheme was only defeated because of the
opposition of Washington who, with great common sense, real-
ized how incongruous it would be to call National University
an institution where the teaching would be conducted entirely
in a foreign language and by foreigners.

Even after this plan had failed, Jefferson did not give up his
ambition to establish somewhere in America and preferably

5o6 THOMAS JEFFERSON

in Virginia, an institution of higher learning. On January i8,
1800, he wrote to Joseph Priestley to ask him to draw up the
program of a university “on a plan so broad, so liberal, and
modern, as to be worth patronizing with the public support.
The first thing is to obtain a good plan,”

Priestley sent him, in answer, some “Hints Concerning Public
Education” which have never been published and probably
did not arouse any enthusiasm in Jefferson. The English
philosopher had simply taken the main features of the English
system, placing the emphasis on the ancient languages and
excluding the modern : “For the knowledge of them as well
as skill in fencing, dancing and riding is proper for gentlemen
liberally educated, and instruction in them may be procured
on reasonable terms without burdening the funds of the semi-
nary with them.” He ended with a verysensible piece of advice :

Three things must be attended to in the education of youth. They
must be taught, fed, and governed, and each of these requires different
qualifications. In the English universities all these offices are
perfectly distinct. The tutors only teach, the proctors superintend
the discipline, and the cooks provide the victuals.^

At the same time Jefferson had sent a similar request to Du
Pont de Nemours. Curiously enough, the Frencliman mani-
fested little enthusiasm for the proposal of his friend. To
establish a university was all very well, but first of all one had
to provide solid foundations and to place educational facilities
within the reach of the great mass of citizens — the university
being only the apex of the pyramid. On this occasion Du Pont
reminded Jefferson that he had expressed himself to such an
intent some fifteen years earlier in his “Notes on Virginia”,
which developed the excellent view that colleges and univer-
sities are not the most important part of the educational system
of the State :

‘ Jefferson Papers. Library of Congress. May 8, 1800.

DEMOCRATIC AMERICA 507

All knowledge readily and daily usable, all practical sciences, all
laborious activities, all the common sense, all the correct ideas, all
the morality, all the virtue, all the courage, all the prosperity, all the
happiness of a nation and particularly of a Republic must spring from
the primary schools or Petites Ecolesd

By July, 1800, Du Pont de Nemours, who had already
proposed a similar scheme to the French Government, had
completed his manuscript and sent it to Jefferson at the
end of August. This was more speed than Jefferson had
expected, and Du Pout’s plan was far too elaborate and
too comprehensive to be of immediate value. “There is
no occasion to incommode yourself by pressing it,” wrote
Jefferson, “ as when received it will be some time before we
shall probably find a good occasion of bringing forward the
subject.” ^

During his presidency, Jefferson had had to lay aside all his
plans and postpone any action for the organization of public
education in his native State until after his retirement. In
the meantime, he read and studied the project of Du Pont de
Nemours and corresponded with Pictet of Geneva; he had
in his hands several memoirs of Julien on the French schools,
and he looked everywhere for precedents and suggestions.
His views were finally formulated in a “Plan for Elementary
Schools” sent to Joseph C. Cabell from Poplar Forest, on Sep-
tember 9, 1817. The act to be submitted to the Assembly of
Virginia was far more comprehensive than the title indicates.
It provided for the establisliment in each cormty of a certain
number of elementary schools, supported by the county and
placed under the supervision of visitors; the counties of the
commonwealth were to be distributed into nine collegiate
districts, and as many colleges, or rather secondary schools,
instituted at the expense of the literary frmd, “ to be supported

Jefferson Papers. Library of Congress. April 21, 1800.

^ Ibid., July 26, 1800.

5 o8 THOMAS JEFFERSON

from it, and to be placed under the supervision of the Board of
Public Instruction.”

“In the said colleges,” proposed Jefferson, “shall be taught
the Greek, Latin, French, Spanish, Italian and German lan-
guages, English grammar, geography, ancient and modern, the
higher branches in numeral arithmetic, the mensuration of land,
the use of the globes, and the ordinary elements of navigation.”

A third part of the act provided for

. . . establishing in a central and healthy part of the State an
University wherein aU the branches of useful sciences may be taught
. . . such as history and geography, ancient and modern , natural
philosophy, agriculture, chemistry, and the theories of medicine,
anatomy, zoology, botany, mineralogy and geology , mathematics,
pure and mixed, military and naval science , ideology, ethics, the law
of nature and of nations , law, municipal, and foreign , the science of
civil government and political economy ; languages, rhetoric, belles-
lettres, and the fine arts generally , which branches of science will
be so distributed and under so many professorships, not exceeding
ten as the Visitors shall think most proper.

Finally, in order “to avail the commonwealth of those talents
and virtues which nature has sown as hberaUy among the poor
as among the rich, and which are lost to their country by the
want of means of their cultivation”, the visitors would select
every year a certain number of promising scholars from the ward
schools to be sent to the colleges and from the colleges to be sent
to the University at the public expense.

This was essentially the Bill for the Diffusion of Knowledge
proposed to the Assembly in 1779. Jefferson had incorporated
in it such modifications as he may have borrowed from Du
Pont de Nemours, but essentially the plan was his own. That
Jefferson himself was perfectly aware of it appears in a short
mention of the fact that “the general idea was suggested in
the ^Notes on Virginia.’ Quer. 14.” ^

* To Thomas Cooper, January j6, 1814 Memorial Edition, XIV, 60,

DEMOCRATIC AMERICA 509

It was soon realized that neither the Assembly nor the public
were ready for such a comprehensive scheme. Part of the
plan had to be sacrificed, if a beginning was to be made at all.
Jefferson did not hesitate long; the elementary schools could
be organized at any time without much preparation or expense ;
secondary education was taken care of after a fashion in private
schools supported from fees ; but nothing existed in the way of
an institution of higher learning. Young Virginians had to be
sent to the northern seminaries, there “imbibing opinions and
principles in discord with those of our own country,” The
university was the thing, and, in order to provide sufficient
funds to start it, Jefferson proposed that subsidies from the
literary fund to the primary schools be suspended for one or
two years. In his opinion this measure did not imply any
disregard of primary education, and Jefferson vehemently pro-
tested to Breckenridge that he had “never proposed a saciifice
of the primary to the ultimate grade of instruction” ; but, “if
we cannot do everything at once, let us do one at a time.” ^

The fight in which Jefferson engaged to obtain recognition for
his project, to have Central College or, as it was finally to be
called, the University of Virginia, located near Monticello,
where he could watch its progress and supervise the construction
of its buildings, has been told many times and does not need to
be recounted here.^

On the board of visitors with Jefferson were placed James
Madison, James Monroe, Joseph C. Cabell, JamesBreckenridge,
David Watson and J. H. Cocke. Jefferson was appointed
Rector of the University at a meeting held on March 29, 1819,
at a time when the imiversity had no buildings, no faculty, no
students and very small means. Everything had to be done

1 Februaiy 15, 1821 Memorial Edition, XV, 315

® The latest account is the monumental “History of the University of Virgima ”
by Professor Phihp Alexander Bruce, New York, 4 vols , 1920 See also the excellent
study of Herbert B Adams, “Thomas Jefferson and the University of Virginia”, United
States Bureau of Education Circular of information No i, 1888.

510 THOMAS JEFFERSON

and provided for. It would have been possible to put up some
sort of temporary shelter, a few ramshackle frame houses, but
Jefferson wanted the university to endure and he remembered
that he was an architect as well as a statesman. It was not
until the spring of 1824 that he could announce that the build-
ings were ready for occupancy — the formal opening was to be
held at the beginning of the following year — but the master
builder could be proud of his work. The university was his in
every sense of the word ; not only had he succeeded in arousing
the interest of the public and the Assembly in his undertaking,
but he had drawn the plans himself with the painstaking care
and the precision he owed to his training as a surveyor. He had
selected the material, engaged the stone carvers, the brick layers
and the carpenters, and supervised every bit of their work.
After his death he would need no other monument.

Then, as everything seemed to be ready, a new difficulty
arose. Ever since 1819, the visitors had been looking for a
faculty. Ticknor, with whom Jefferson had gotten acquainted
through Mrs. Adams, had refused to leave Cambridge although
disgusted with the petty bickerings of his colleagues. Thomas
Cooper had proved inacceptable, and the very mention of his
name had aroused such a storm among the clergy that the
appointment had to be withdrawn. After a long and fruitless
search for the necessary talents at home, Jefferson and his fellow
m,embers on the board of the university decided to procure the
professors from abroad. This time, however, they were not
to repeat the mistake of the proposed transplantation of the
University of Geneva. Several prominent Frenchmen sug-
gested by Lafayette were turned down as too ignorant of the
ways of American youth and the language of the country. There
remained only one place from which satisfactory instructors
could be obtained ; this was England. Their nationality did
not raise any serious objection, for, to the resentment of the
War of i8iq had succeeded the “era of good feeling”, and

DEMOCRATIC AMERICA 511

Francis Walker Gilmer was commissioned to go to England in
order to consult with Dugald Stewart and to recruit a faculty
from Great Britain, “the land of our own language, habits
and manners.” ^

Eighteen months later, the Rector declared the experiment
highly successful, and the example likely to be followed by other
institutions of learning.

It cannot fail — wrote Jefferson — to be one of the efficacious
means of promoting that cordial good will, which it is so much the
interest of both nations to cherish. These teachers can never utter
an unfriendly sentiment towards their native country ; and those
into whom their instruction will be infused, are not of ordinary
significance only ; they are exactly the persons who are to succeed
to the government of our country, and to rule its future enmities, its
friendships and fortunes.^

Thus after fifty years, Jefferson was able to make real his
educational dream of the Revolutionary period, to endow his
native State with an institution of higher learning in which the
future leaders of the nation would be instructed. They would
no longer have to be sent abroad to obtain the required knowl-
edge in some subjects ; nor would they have to study in “the
Northern seminaries”, there to be infected with pernicious
doctrines ; above aU, they would be preserved from any sec-
tarian influence during their formative years ; for no particular
creed was to be taught at the xmiversity, although the majority
of the faculty belonged to the Episcopal Church.

The University of Virginia was the last great task to which
Jefferson put his hand, an achievement of which he was no less
proud than of having written the Declaration of Independence.
To bring it to a successful conclusion this septuagenarian dis-
played an admirable tenacity, a resourcefiflness, a practical

1 To Richard Rush, April a6, 1824. Memorial Edition, XVI, 31.

* To the Honorable J. Evelyn Hemson, M R , November 9,1825. Ibid , XVI, 129

512 THOMAS JEFFERSON

wisdom, a sense of the immediate possibilities and an idealistic
vision, the combination of which t3^ihes the best there is in
the national character of the American people. It would take
many pages to study in detail Jefferson’s educational ideas,
as he expressed them in the minutes of the board and in his
many letters to John Adams, Thomas Cooper and Joseph
CabeU. The most remarkable feature of the new institution
was that, for the first time in the history of the country, higher
education was made independent of the Church, and to a large
extent the foundation of the University of Virginia marks the
beginning of the secularization of scientific research in America.
Its “father” certainly gave some thought to the possible exten-
sion of the educational system that had finally won recognition
in his native Virginia, to aU the States in the country ; but he
was too fully aware of the difficulties to follow his old friend
Du Pont de Nemours and to propose a Plan for a National
Education. At least he “had made a beginning”, he “had
set an example”, and he built even better than he knew. The
man who wished to be remembered as the “father of the Univer-
sity of Virgmia” was also, in more than one sense, the father of
the State universities which play such an important part in the
education of the American democracy.

CHAPTER III

THE PHELOSOPHY OF OLD AGE

Old people are often accused of being too conservative, and
even reactionary. They seem out of step with the younger
generations, and very few preserve enough resiliency to keep in
touch with the ceaseless changes taking place around them.
But a few men who, bom in the second half of the eighteenth
century, lived well up into the nineteenth, were able to escape
this apparently unavoidable law of nature. After witnessing
political convulsions, commotions and revolutions, they clung
tenaciously to the faith of their yoimger days. They refused
to accept the view that the world was going from bad to worse ;
they looked untiringly for every symptom of improvement and
thought they could distinguish everywhere signs foretelling the
dawn of a new era. The growing infirmities of their bodies did
not leave them any illusion about their inevitable disappear-
ance from the stage and they were not upheld by any strong
belief in personal immortality. But however uncertain and
hazy may have been their religious tenets, they had a stanch
faith in the unlimited capacity of human nature for improve-
ment and development. They believed in the irresistible
power of truth, in the ultimate recognition of natural principles
and natural laws, in the religion of progress as it had been
formulated by the eighteenth-century philosophers. Thus,
rather than foUow the precept of the ancient poet and unhitch
their aging horses, they had anticipated the advice of the
American philosopher by hitching their wagon to a star.

Du Pont de Nemours, experimenting with his sons to develop
American industries in order to make America economically

514 THOMAS JEFFERSON

independent from Europe; Destutt de Tracy, almost com-
pletely blind, dictating his treatise on political economy and
appearing in the streets of Paris during the glorious days of
1830 ; Lafayette, yearning and hoping for the recognition of his
ideal of liberty during the Empire and the Restauration — all of
these were more than survivors of a forgotten age. Even to the
younger generations they represented the living embodiment of
the political faith of the nineteenth century. It is not a mere
coincidence that most of them were friends and admirers of the
Sage of Monticello, whose letters they read “as the letters of the
Apostles were read in the circle of the early Christians.”

Jefferson could complain that “the decays of age had enfee-
bled the useful energies of the mind”,^ but he kept, practically
to his last day, his alertness, his encyclopaedic curiosity and
an extraordinary capacity for work. A large part of his time
was taken by his correspondence. Turning to his letter list
for 1820 he found that he had received no less than “one thou-
sand two hundred and sixty-seven communications, many of
them requiring answers of elaborate research, and all of them
to be answered with due attention and consideration.” ^ I may
be permitted to add that a large part of the letters he received
as well as those he wrote deserve publication and would greatly
contribute to our knowledge of the period.

Among them essays and short treatises on every possible
subject under heaven will be found. With Du Pont de
Nemours, Jefferson discussed not only questions of political
economy, education and government, but the acclimation of the
merino sheep, the manufacturing of woolen goods and nails,
the construction of gunboats and the organization of the militia.
With Madame de Tess6, Lafayette’s aged cousin, he resumed the
exchange of botanical views, interrupted by his presidency and
the contiaental blockade. He undertook to put together the

‘ To John Brazier, August 24, 1814, Memorial Edition, XV, 207.

* June 27, 1822, Ibid., XV, 387,

THE PHILOSOPHY OF OLD AGE 515

scraps of paper on which he had scribbled notes during Wash-
ington’s and Adams’ administrations and compiled his famous
“Anas” ; he wrote his “Autobiography”, furnished documents
to Girardin for his continuation of Burke’s “History of Vir-
ginia” ; he answered queries on the circumstances under which
he had written the Declaration of Independence, the Kentucky
Resolution, on his attitude towards France when Secretary of
State and President ; he criticized quite extensively Marshall’s
“History of Washington” and one of his last letters, written on
May 15, 1826, was to inform one of his friends of the facts con-
ceming “Arnold’s invasion and surprise of Richmond, in the
winter of 1780-81.” ^

His interest in books was greater than ever ; he had scarcely
sold his library to Congress when he undertook to collect
another, gomg systematically through the publishers’ cata-
logues, writing to booksellers in Richmond, Philadelphia, New
York and even abroad, requesting his European friends to
send him the latest publications and asking young Ticknor to
procure for him, in France or Germany, the best editions of
the Greek and Latin classics. He drew up the plans for the
University of Virginia and supervised the construction of the
building. Between times he took upon himself the task of
rewriting entirely the translation of Destutt de Tracy’s “Review
of Montesquieu” and directed the printing of his treatise on
“Political Economy.” After writing letters, regulating the
work of the farm, he spent several hours on horseback every
day and during the balance of the afternoon read new and old
books, played with his grandchildren, walked in the garden to
look at his favorite trees, listened to music and, during the
fine weather, received the visitors who flocked to Monticello
by the dozens. Some were simply idlers coming out of curios-
ity, many were old friends who stayed for days or weeks ; but
aU were welcomed with the same affable courtesy and the same

“ Memorial Edition, XVI, 173.

Si6 THOMAS JEFFERSON

generous hospitality, according to the best traditions of old
Virginia.

They came from all nations, at all times — wrote Doctor Dungli-
son — -and paid longer or shorter visits, I have known a New
England judge bring a letter of introduction and stay three weeks.
The learned abbe Correa, always a welcome guest, passed some
weeks of each year with us during the whole time of his stay in the
country We had persons from abroad, from aU the States of the
Union, from every part of the State — men, women, and children.

. . . People of wealth, fashion, men in office, Protestant clergymen,
Catholic priests, members of Congress, foreign ministers, mission-
aries, Indian agents, tourists, travellers, artists, strangers, friends.^

No sound estimate of the extraordinary influence exerted by
Jefferson upon the growth of liberalism can be made at the
present time. It would require separate studies, careful investi-
gation and the publication of many letters, safely preserved but
too little used, which rest in the Jefferson Papers of the Library
of Congress, and with the Massachusetts Historical Society. I
have already printed Jefferson’s correspondence with Volney,
Destutt de Tracy, Lafayette and Du Pont de Nemours ; many
other letters, no less significant, remain practically unknown.
He encouraged his European friends, Correa de Serra, Kos-
ciusko, the Greek Coray, to keep up their courage, to hope
against hope. To all of them he preached the same gospel of
faith in the ultimate and inevitable recognition throughout the
world of the principles of American democracy. This was not
done for propaganda’s sake, for no man would deserve less than
Jefferson the dubious qualification of propagandist. The many
letters written to his American friends on the same subject
clearly show that this was his profoimd conviction and almost
his only raison d’itre. His was not an over-optimistic tempera-
ment ; he did not fail to notice all “ the specks of hurricane on
the horizon of the world,” Yet, aU considered, and in spite of

' Doctor DimgUson’s Memorandum, in “Domestic Life”, p. 402.

THE PHILOSOPHY OF OLD AGE 517

temporary fits of despondency, his conclusion on the future
of democracy can be summed up in the words he wrote to
John Adams at the end of 1821 :

I will not believe our labors are lost. I shall not die without a
hope that light and liberty are on a steady advance. We have seen
indeed, once within the record of history, the complete eclipse of the
human mind continuing for centuries . . . even should the cloud of
barbarism and despotism again obscure the science and liberties of
Europe, this country remains to preserve and restore light and lib-
erty to them. In short, the fiames kindled on the 4 th of July
1776, have spread over too much of the globe to be extinguished by
the feeble engines of despotism; on the contrary, they will consume
these engines and all who work them.^

Jefferson felt such a dislike for unnecessary controversies
that he was apt to adopt the tone and the style of his corre-
spondents and apparently to accept their ideas, so that many
contradictions can be found in these letters. To a chosen few
only he fully revealed his intimate thoughts and without reti-
cence, without fear of being betrayed, communicated liis doubts,
his hopes and Ifis hatred. The letters he wrote to Short,
Priestley, and Thomas Cooper are most remarkable in this
respect. But with none of them did he communicate so freely
as with his old friend John Adams. The correspondence that
passed between them during the last fifteen years of their lives
constitutes one of the most striking and illuminating human
documents a student of psychology may ever hope to discover.
To those who have had the privilege of using the manuscripts
to follow month by month the palsied hand of Adams rmtil he
had to cease writing himself and dictated his letters to a “female
member of his household”, it seems unthinkable that the wish
expressed by Wirt in 1826, — to see the correspondence between
the two great men published in its entirety, — should not have
received its fulfillment.

1 September la, iSai. Memorial Edition, XV, 334.

5i8 THOMAS JEFFERSON

They had been estranged for a long time, and no word had
passed between them for more than ten years after Adams’
sulky departure from Washington on the morning of March 4,
1801. At the beginning of 1811, Doctor Benjamin Rush
made bold to deplore “the discontinuance of friendly corre-
spondence between Mr. Adams and Mr. Jefferson.” Jefferson
answered quite lengthily, giving a long accoimt of his difficul-
ties with Adams, including the letter written by Abigail Adams
in 1802, but adding that he would second with pleasure every
effort made to bring about a reconciliation. However, he did
not entertain much hope that Doctor Rush would succeed, for
he knew it was “part of Mr. Adams’ character to suspect foul
play in those of whom he is jealous, and not easily to relinquish
his suspicions.” ^

It was not until the end of the same year that Jefferson took
up the subject again, having heard that during a conversation
Adams had mentioned his name, adding: “I always loved
Jefferson, and still love him.” This was enough, and it only
remained to create an opportunity to resume the correspondence
without too much awkwardness; but “from this fusion of
sentiments” Mrs. Adams was “of course to be separated”, for
Jefferson could not believe that the woman wounded in her
motherly pride had forgotten anything. This was no insuper-
able obstacle, however : “It will only be necessary that I never
name her” wrote Jefferson.®

Adams took the first step, sending to Jefferson “a piece of
homespun lately produced in this quarter ”, which was nothing
but the lectures delivered by J. Q. Adams at Harvard. Jefferson
could but acknowledge the peace offering, which he did most
gracefully, without mentioning Mrs. Adams.® But he was too
much of a Southern gentleman to hold a resentment long, even

^ January 16, 1811. Memorial Edition, XIII, 9.

* December 5, rSu, Ihid., XIII, 114.

® January ar, iSra. Ibid., XUI, 123.

THE PHILOSOPHY OF OLD AGE 519

against a woman of such a jealous disposition. Two months
later he sent for the first time the homage of his respects to
Mrs. Adams, after which he never forgot to mention her. On
two occasions he even wrote her charming letters, in the same
friendly tone as he had used with her twenty-five years earlier,
when he used to do shopping for her in Paris. On hearing of
her death on November 13, 1818, he sent to his stricken old
friend a touching expression of his S3nnpathy :

Will I say more where words are vain, but that it is of some com-
fort to us both, that the term is not very distant, at which we are to
deposit in the same cerement our sorrows and suffering bodies, and
to ascend in essence to an ecstatic meeting with the friends we have
loved and lost, and whom we shall still love and never lose again.’

Quite naturally, as the circle of his friends grew narrower
and one after the other were called by death, Jefferson’s
thoughts turned to the hereafter. In his youth he had appar-
ently settled the problem once for all ; but the solution then
found was scarcely more than a temporary expedient. It may
behove a young man full of vigor, with a long stretch of years
before him, to declare that “the business of life is with matter”
and that it serves no purpose to break om* heads against a
blank wall. There are very few men, if they are thinking at
all, who can entirely dismiss from their minds the perplexing
and torturing riddle, as the term grows nearer every day. Such
an ataraxia may have been obtained by a few sages of old, but
it is hardly human, and Jefferson, like Adams, was very human.
This is a subject, however, which I cannot approach without
some reluctance. Jefferson himself would have highly dis-
approved of such a discussion. After submitting silently to so
many fierce criticisms, after being accused of atheism, material-
ism, impiety and philosophism by his contemporaries, he hoped
that the question would never be broached to him again.

* Memorial Edition, XV, 174.

520 THOMAS JEFFERSON

With those who tried to revive it, he had absolutely no
patience.

One of our fan-coloring biographers — he wrote once — who
paint small men as very great, inquired of me lately, with real affec-
tion too, whether he might consider as authentic, the change in my
religion much spoken of in some circles. Now this supposed that
they knew what had been my reUgion before, taking for it the word
of their priests, whom I certainly never made the confidants of my
creed. My answer was ; “ Say nothing of my religion. It is luiown
to my God and myself alone. Its evidence before the world is to
be sought in my life ; if that has been honest and, dutiful to society,
the religion which has regulated it cannot be a bad one.” ^

Unfortunately the controversy is still going on and at least a
few points must be indicated here. The simplest and to some
extent the most acceptable treatment of the matter was given a
few years after his death by the physician who attended him
up to the last minutes :

It is due, also, to that illustrious individual to say, that, in all my
intercourse with him, I never heard an observation that savored,
in the slightest degree, of impiety. His religious belief harmonized
more closely with that of the Unitarians than of any other denom-
ination, but it was Uberal, and untrammelled by sectarian feelings
and prejudices.^

But Doctor Dunglison’s declaration is somewhat unsatis-
factory and misleading, for Jefferson once gave his own defini-
tion of Unitarianism. From a letter he wrote to James Smith
in 1822 it appears he was not ready to join the Unitarian
Church any more than any other :

About Unitarianism, the doctrine of the early ages of Christianity
. . . the pure and simple unity of the Creator of the universe, is now
all but ascendant in the Eastern States ; it is dawning in the West,

^January n, 1817. Memorial Edition, XV, 97.
* February si, 1835- “Domestic Life”, p. 423.

THE PHILOSOPHY OF OLD AGE 521

and advancing towards the South ; and I confidently expect that the
present generation will see Unitarianism become the general religion
of the United States. ... I write with freedom, because, while
I claim a right to believe in one God, if so my reason tells me, I yield
as freely to others that of believing in three. ^

On the other hand, one might easily be misled by some
declarations of Jefferson to his more intimate friends. “ I am
a materialist — I am an Epicurian,” he wrote on several
instances to John Adams, Thomas Cooper and Short, with
whom he felt that he could discuss religious questions more
freely than with any others. Rejecting the famous Cogito
ergo sum of Descartes, he fell back when in doubt on his “ habit-
ual anodyne” : “I feel therefore I exist.” This in his opinion
did not imply the sole existence of matter, but simply that he
could not "conceive thought to be an action of a particular
organisation of matter, formed for the purpose by its Creator,
as well as that attraction is an action of matter, or magnetism
of loadstone.” Then he added : “lam supported in my creed
of materialism by the Lockes, the Tracys and the Stewarts.
At what age of the Christian Church this heresy of immaterial-
ism or masked atheism, crept in, I do not exactly know. But a
heresy it certainly is. Jesus taught nothing of it. ” ^

In the same sense he could write to Judge Augustus S,
Woodward : “Jesus himself, the Founder of our religion, was
unquestionably a Materialist as to man. In all His doctrines
of the resurrection, he teaches expressly that the body is to
rise in substances.” ®

His definition of Epicurism would seem equally remote from
the popular acceptation, and certainly Jefferson was never
of those who could deserve the old appellation of Epicuri ie
grege porous; for his Epicurus is the philosopher “whose

1 To James Smith, December 8, 1822. Memorial Edition, XV, 410.

® To John Adams, August 15, 1820. Ihid., XV, 269-276.

“ March 24, 1824. Ibid., XVI, 17.

522 T H 0 M A S J E F F E R S 0 N

doctrines contain everything rational in moral philosophy which
Greece and Rome have left us.” ^

AH through the year 1813 and on many occasions after that
date, Adams tried to draw him out on the question of religion.
“For,” as he said, “these things are to me, at present, the
marbles and nine-pins of old age; I will not say beads and
prayer books.” But Jefferson could not have declared, as did
his old friend : “For more than sixty years I have been atten-
tive to this great subject. Controversies between Calvinists
and Arminians, Trinitarians and Unitarians, Deists and
Christians, Atheists and both, have attracted my attention,
whenever the singular life I have led would admit, to all these
questions.” ^

Not so with Jefferson, who felt a real abhorrence for theologi-
cal discussions and considered them as a sheer waste of time.
They belonged to a past age and were to be buried in oblivion
lest they create again an atmosphere of fanaticism and intoler-
ance ; at best, they could be left to the clergy. But tolerant
as he was, there were certain doctrines against which Jefferson
revolted even in later life, as he probably did when a student
at William and Mary :

I can never join Calvin in addressing his God. He was indeed an
atheist, which I can never be ; or rather his religion was dsemonism.
Tf ever man worshipped a false God, he did. The God described
in his five points, is not the God whom you acknowledge and adore,
the Creator and benevolent Governor of the world ; but a daemon
of malignant spirit.

But right after this virulent denunciation comes a most
interesting admission. If Jefferson’s God was not the God of
Calvin, he was just as remote from the mechanistic material-
ism of D’Holbach and La Mettrie as he was from Calvinism

October 31, X819. Memorial Edition, XV, aig,

’ July i 3 j XIII, 319.

THE PHILOSOPHY OF OLD AGE 523

and predestination. Leaving aside aU questions of dogmas
and revelation he held that :

When we take a view of the universe, in its parts, general or
particular, it is impossible for the human mind not to perceive and
feel a conviction of design, consummate skill, and indefinite power
in every atom of its composition. So irresistible are these evidences
of an intelligent and powerful Agent, that of the infinite numbers
of men who have existed through all time, they have believed, in the
proportion of a milKon at least to a unit, in the hypothesis of an
eternal pre-existence of a Creator, rather than in that of a self
existing universe.^

From this passage, it would seem that Jefferson founded his
belief in the existence of God on the two well-known arguments :
the order of the Universe and the general consensus of opinion.
If it were so, he would follow close on the steps of the English
deists of the school of Pope. But religion to him was something
more than the mere “acknowledgement” and “adoration of the
benevolent Governor of the world” ;

It is more than an inner conviction of the existence of the
Creator ; true religion is morality. If by religion we are to under-
stand sectarian dogmas^ in which no two of them agree, then your
exclamation on that hypothesis is just, “that this would be the best
possible of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it.” But
if the moral precepts, innate in man, and made a part of his physical
consititution, as necessary for a social being, if the sublime doctrines
of philanthropism and deism taught us by Jesus of Nazareth, in
which we all agree, constitute true religion, then, without it, this
would be, as you again say, “something not fi.t to be named even,
indeed, a hell.”®

On this point as on so many others Jefferson is distinctly an
eighteenth-century man. One of the pet schemes of the philos-
ophers was to prove that there is no necessary connection
between religion and morality. It was an essential article

* To John Adams, April 11, 1820. Memorial Edition, XV, 427.

® To John Adams, May s, 1817, Ibii., XV, 109.

524

THOMAS JEFFERSON

of the philosophical creed from Pierre Bayle to Jefferson, and
long before them, Montaigne had filled his “Essays” with
countless anecdotes and examples tending to prove this point.
But Jefferson went one step farther than most of the French
philosophers, with the exception of Rousseau. Morality is
not founded on a religious basis; religion is morality. This
being accepted, it remains to determine the foundation of
morality. In a letter written to Thomas Law during the sum-
mer of 1814, Jefferson examined the different solutions pro-
posed by theologians and philosophers and clearly indicated his
preference.

“ It was vain to say that it was truth ; for truth is elusive, un-
attainable, and there is no certain criticism of it.” It is not
either the “love of God”, for an atheist may have morality, and
“Diderot, d’Holbach, Condorcet, are known to have been the
most virtuous of men.” It is not either the to kalon, for many
men are deprived of any esthetic sense. Self-interest is more
satisfactory, but even the demonstration given by Helv6tius is
not perfectly convincing. All these explanations are one step
short of the ultimate question.

The truth of the matter is, that Nature has implanted in our
breasts a love of others, a sense of duty to them, a moral instinct,
in short, which prompts us irresistibly to feel and succour their
distresses. It is true that these social dispositions are not im-
planted in every man, because there is no rule without exceptions ;
but It is false reasoning which converts exceptions into the general
rule. Some men are born without the organs of sight, or of hearing,
or without hands. Yet it would be wrong to say that man is born
without these faculties. When the moral sense is wanting, we
endeavor to supply the defect by education ; by appeals to reason
and calculation, by presenting to the being so imhappily conformed
other motives to do good. But nature has constituted utility to
man the social test of virtue. The same act may be useful and
consequently virtuous in a country which is injurious and vicious in

THE PHILOSOPHY OF OLD AGE 525

another differently circumstanced. I sincerely then believe, with
you, in the general existence of a moral instinct. I think it is the
brightest gem with which the human character is studded, and the
want of it is more degrading than the most hideous of the bodily
deformities.^

The test of morality then becomes, not self-interest, as
Hclvetius had maintained (and Jefferson reproved Destutt de
Tracy for having accepted tliis theory), but general interest and
social utility. This is almost the criterium of Kant and one
would be tempted to press this parallelism, if there was any
reason to believe that the Philosopher of Monticello had ever
heard the name of the author of “Practical Reason.” On this
point, as on so many others, Jefferson differs radically from
Rousseau, who admitted also a benevolent governor of the world
and the existence of a moral instinct, but who would have
strenuously denied that this moral instinct was nothing but
the social instinct. Jefferson, on the contrary, is led to recog-
nize the existence of morality, chiefly because, man being a so-
cial being, society cannot be organized and subsist if it is not
composed of moral beings.

Reading, reflection and time have convinced me that the interests
of society require the observation of those moral precepts in which
all religions agree, (for all forbid us to murder, steal, plunder or bear
false witness,) and that we should not intermeddle with the particu-
lar dogmas in which all religions differ, and which are totally uncon-
nected with morality. In all of them we see good men, and as many
in one as another. The varieties of structures of action of the hum an
mind as in those in the body, are the work of our Creator, against
which it cannot be a religious duty to erect the standard of uniform-
ity. The practice of morality being necessary for the well-being
of society, he has taken care to impress its precepts so indelibly on
our hearts that they shall not be effaced by the subtleties of our
brain.^

1 June 13, 1814 Memorial Edition, XIV, 141.

‘ To James Fishback, September 27, 1809 Ibtd., XII, 315.

526 THOMAS JEFFERSON

This was stated more humorously by John Adams after they
had treated the subject exhaustively in a series of letters :
“Vain man, mind your own business. Do no wrong — ; do all
the good you can. Eat your canvasback ducks, drink your
Burgundy. Sleep your siesta when necessary, and trust in

GOD.” ^

This being the case, it remained to determine whether man
could not find somewhere a code of morality that would express
the precepts impressed in our hearts. In his youth, Jefferson
had copied and accepted as a matter of course the statement of
Bolingbroke that ;

It is not true that Christ revealed an entire body of ethics, proved
to be the law of nature from principles of reason and reaching ali
duties of life. ... A system thus collected from the writings of
the ancient heathen moralists, of Tully, of Seneca, of Epictetus,
and others, would be more fuU, more entire, more coherent, and
more clearly deduced from unquestionable principles of knowledge.^

In order to realize how far away Jefferson had drawn from his
radicalism, it is only necessary to go back to his “ Syllabus of an
Estimate of the Merit of the Doctrines of Jesus, compared with
those of others”, written for Benjamin Rush, in 1803, after
reading Doctor Priestley’s little treatise “Of Socrates and
and Jesus compared.” ^ There he had declared that

His moral doctrines relating to kindred and friends, were more
pure and perfect than those of the most correct of the philosophers,
and . . . they went far in inculcating universal philanthropy, not
only to kindred and friends, to neighbors and countrymen, but to
all mankind, gathering all into one family, under the bonds of love,
charity, peace, common wants and common aids. A development
of this head will evince the peculiar superiority of the system of
Jesus over all others.

1 May 26, 1817. Memorial Edition, XV, 122,

*See my edition o£ “The Literaiy Bible of Thomas Jeffeison." Paris, Baltimore,
1928, p. s8.

* April 21, 1803. Memorial Edition, X, 379.

THE PHILOSOPHY OF OLD AGE 527

Jefiersoii had been won over to Christianity by the superior
social value of the morals of Jesus. In that sense, he could
already say, “I am a Christian, in the only sense in which He
wished any one to be, sincerely attached to His doctrines, in
preference to all others.”

This profession of faith made publicly might have assuaged
some of the fierce attacks directed against Jefferson on the
ground of his “infidelity ”, and yet even at that time he emphati-
cally begged Doctor Rush not to make it public, for “it behooves
every man who values liberty of conscience for himself ... to
give no example of concession, betraying the common right of
independent opinion, by answering questions of faith, which
the laws have left between God and himself.” To a certain
extent, however, liis famous “Life and Morals of Jesus”,
compiled durmg the last ten years of his life^ may well be
considered an indirect and yet categorical recantation of
Bohngbroke’s haughty dogmatism. Age, experience, observa-
tion had mellowed the Stoic. He was not yet ready to accept
as a whole the dogmas of Christianity, but the superiority of
the morals of Jesus over the tenets of the “heathen moralists”
did not any longer leave any doubt in his mind.

Whether after the death of the body something of man sur-
vived, was an entirely different question — one that human
reason could not answer satisfactorily. It cannot even be
stated with certainty that he would have agreed with John
Adams when the latter wrote : “ II faut trancher le mot. What is
there in life to attach us to it but the hope of % future and a
better? It is a cracker, a rocket, a fire- work at best.” “

He never denied categorically the existence of a future life,
but this life was a thing in itself, and after all, it was worth
living. Altogether this world was a pretty good place, and

^ See the introduction of Doctor Cyrus Adler, in the Congressional Edition repro-
duced in the Memorial Edition, XX.

“ May 3, 1816. Memorial Edition, XV, 10.

528 THOMAS JEFFERSON

when John Adams asked him whether he would agree to live his
seventy-three years over again, he answered energetically :
“Yea. — ■ I think with you,” he added, “that it is a good world
on the whole ; that it has been framed on a principle of benev-
olence, and more pleasure than pain dealt to us. . . . My
temperament is sanguine. I steer my bark with Hope in the
head, leaving Fear astern. My hopes, indeed, sometimes fail,
but not oftener than the foreboding of the gloomy.” ^ His
old friend was far from attaining such an equanimity and could
not help envying the Sage of Monticello sailing his bark
“Hope with her gay ensigns displayed at the prow, Fear with
her hobgoblins behind the stern. Hope springs eternal and all
is that endures. ...” But Jefferson was bolstered up in his
confident attitude by the intimate conviction that he had done
good work, that he had contributed his best to the most worthy
cause and that he had not labored in vain.

This was not only a good world, but it was already much
better than when he had entered it. He had

. . . observed the march of civilization advancing from the sea
coast, passing over us like a cloud of light, increasing our knowledge
and improving our condition, insomuchas that we are at that time
more advanced in civilization here than the seaports were when I
was a hoy. And where this progress will stop no one can say.
Barbarism has, in the meantime, been receding before the steady
step of amelioration ; and will in time, I trust, disappear from the
earth.®

Scarcely t'^o weeks before he died — and this is practically
bis last important utterance — he recalled in a letter to the
citizens of the city of Washington who had invited him to
attend the celebration held for the fiftieth anniversary of the
Declaration of Independence, how proud he was that his fellow
citizens, after fifty years, continued to approve the choice made

' April 6, i8i6. Memorial Edition, XIV, 467,

*To William Ludlow, September 6, 1824. Unci., XVI, 75,

THE PHILOSOPHY OF OLD AGE 529

when the Declaration was adopted, “ May it be to the world,”
he added, “ what I believe it will (to some parts sooner, to others
later, but finally to all) the signal of arousing men to burst the
chains under which monkish ignorance and superstition had
persuaded them to bind themselves, and to assume the blessings
and security of self-government.” ^

This faith in the ultimate recognition of the ideals, which he
had defined with such a felicity of expression half a century earlier,
was, even more than any belief in personal immortality, “the
rocket” that John Adams thought so necessary to attach us to
this life. It was a real religion, the religion of progress, of the
eighteenth century which had its devotees and with Condorcet
its martyr. Strengthened by the intimate conviction that he
would be judged from his acts and not “from his words”, he
saw the approach of Death without any qualms, and he turned
back to his old friends of Greece and Rome, for “the classic
pages fill up the vacuum of emm, and become sweet composers
to that rest of the grave into which we are sooner or later to
descend.” ^ On many occasions he expressed his readiness to
depart : “I enjoy good health,” he wrote once to John Adams ;
“I am happy in what is around me, yet I assure you I am ripe
for leaving ah, this year, this day, this hour.” ® It took almost
ten years after these lines were written for the caU to come.
Most of his biographers have dealt extensively with the remark-
able vigor preserved by Jefferson even to his last day. Tor
several years after his retirement he remained a hale and robust
old man. But he felt none the less the approaching dissolution
and watched anxiously the slow progress of his physical limita-
tions. His letters do not completely bear out on this point the
statement made by Mrs. Sarah Randolph in her “Domestic
Life of Thomas Jefferson.”

1 June 24, 1826. Memorial Edition, XVI, i8i.

® To John Brazier, August 24, 1819. Ibid., XV, 207.

® August I, 1816. Ibid,, XVI, s6.

530 THOMAS JEFFERSON

At seventy-three he was still remarkably robust and, with the
minuteness of a physician, described his case in a letter to his
old friend Charles Thomson :

I retain good health, am rather feeble to walk much, but ride
with ease, passing two or three hours a day on horseback. . . . My
eyes need the aid of glasses by night, and with small print in the day
also ; my hearing is not quite so sensible as it used to be ; no tooth
shaking yet, but shivering and shrinking in body from the cold we
now experience ; my thermometer having been as low as i2° this
morning. My greatest oppression is a correspondence afflictingly
laborious, the extent of which I have been long endeavoring to cur-
tail. Could I reduce this epistolary corvee within the limits of my
friends and affairs . . . my life would be as happy as the infirmities
of age would admit, and I should look on its consummation with the
composure of one “qui summum nec metuit diem nec optat.” *

This remarkable preservation of his faculties he attributed
largely to his abstemious diet. For years he had eaten little
animal food, and that “not as an aliment so much as a condi-
ment for the vegetables”, which constituted his principal diet.
“I double however the Doctor’s glass and a half of wine, and
even treble it with a friend, but halve its effects by drinking the
weak wines only. The ardent wines I cannot drink, nor do I
use ardent spirits in any form.”

Yet he had to admit to Mrs. Trist in 1814 that he was only
“an old half-strung fiddle”,® and as he advanced in age the
“machine” gave evident signs of wearing out. The recurrence
of the suffering caused by his broken wrist, badly set in Paris
by the famous Louis,^ and still worse the very painful “disury ”
with which he was afflicted ® gave him many unhappy hours.
To die was nothing, for as he wrote then in his old “ Common-

' January g, i8id. Memorial Edition, XIV, 383
^ To Doctor Vine TJlley, March ax, 18x9 Ihd,, XV, 187
^ Jefferson Papers. Massachusetts Historical Society, March 5, r8x4.

* Ibid., To Short, December ry, 1822.

® lUd., To Samuel Smith, October 22, X825.

THE PHILOSOPHY OF OLD AGE 531

place Book”, “I do not worry about the hereafter, even if now
the doom of death stands at my feet, for we are men and cannot
live forever. To all of us death must happen.”^ But “bodily
decay” was “gloomy in prospect, for of all human contempla-
tion the most abhorrent is a body without mind. To be a
doting old man, to repeat four times over the same story in one
hour”, if this was life, it was “at most the life of a cabbage.” ^
He was spared this affliction he dreaded so much, and when
Lafayette visited him in November, 1824, the Marquis found
him “much aged without douht, after a separation of thirty-five
years, but bearing marvelously well under his eighty-one years
of age, in full possession of aU the vigor of his mind and heart.” ®
Six months later, when Lafayette took his final leave, Jefferson
was weaker and confined to his house, suffering much “with
one foot in the grave and the other one upHfted to follow it.”

Death was slowly approaching, without any particular
disease being noticeable ; after running for eighty-three years
“the machine” was about to “surcease motion.” The end has
been told by several contemporaries and friends. No account
is more simple and more touching in its simplicity than the
relation written by his attending physician. Doctor Dunglison :

Until the 2d. and 3d. of July he spoke freely of his approaching
death ; made all arrangements with his grandson, Mr. Randolph, in
regard to his private affairs; and expressed his anxiety for the
prosperity of the University and his confidence in the exertion in
its behalf of Mr. Madison and the other visitors. He repeatedly,
too, mentioned his obligation to me for my attention to him. Dur-
ing the last week of his existence I remained at Monticello ; and
one of the last remarks he made was to me. In the course of the day
and night of the 2d of July he was affected with stupor, with intervals
of wakefulness and consciousness ; but on the 3d the stupor became

1 “Literary Bible”, p 36 Paris, Baltimore, 1928.

“ To Jolui Adams — August r, 1816. Memorial Edition, XV, 56, and June i, 1822.
Ibid , XV, 371 -

3 November 8, 1824, “M^moires”, VI, 183.

532 THOMAS JEFFERSON

almost permanent. About seven o’clock, of tbe evening of that day
he awoke and, seeing me staying at his bedside, exclaimed, “Ah,
Doctor, are you still there?" in a voice, however, that was husky
and indistinct. He then asked, “Is it the Fourth?” to which I
replied, “It wiU soon be.” These were the last words I heard him
utter.

Until towards the middle of the day — the 4th — he remained in
the same state, or nearly so, wholly unconscious to everything that
was passing around him. His circulation, however, was gradually
becoming more languid ; and for some time prior to dissolution the
pulse at the wrist was imperceptible. About one o’clock he ceased
to exist.^

A few days before he had taken his final dispositions and seen
all the members of his family. He was not a man to indulge in
a painful display of emotions, but he told his dear daughter
Martha that “in a certain drawer in an old pocket book she
would find something for her.” It was a piece of paper on
which he had written eight lines “A death bed adieu from Th, J,
to M. R.” There was no philosopliism nor classical reminis-
cence in it ; it was the simple expression of his last hope that on
the shore

'‘Which crowns all my hopes, or which buries my care” he
would find awaiting him “ two seraphs long shrouded in death”,
his beloved wife and his young daughter Maria.

He was buried by their side in the family plot of Monticello.
According to his wishes no invitations were issued and no notice
of the hour given. “His body was borne privately from his
dwelling by his family and servants, but his neighbors and
friends, anxious to pay the last tribute of respect to one they
had loved and honored, waited for it in crowds at the grave.”
A typically American scene, without parade, without speeches
and long ceremonies — almost a pioneer burial in a piece of
land reclaimed from the wildemess.

' “Domestic Life", p. 423,

INDEX

Absolutism, evils of, 203
Adams, Abigail, Jefferson shops for, 160;
the “New England Juno”, 323; and
Jefferson, 382, 383,_386, 518, 519
Adams, Henry, his criticism of Jefferson’s
conduct of foreign affairs, 409, 440, 441,
453. 459. 460, 464

Adams, John, Jefferson’s correspondence
with, 23, 482, 490, S03. 512, S17, 521,
326, 329 ; his first impression of Jeffer-
son, 39 ; on committee of Continental
Congress appointed to answer Lord
North’s “Conciliatory Proposition”,
62; assists in framing resolution in-
structing colonies to form governments,
66; his part in Declaration of Inde-
pendence, 69, 70; on committee to
suggest United States seal, 86; ap-
pomted Minister Plenipotentiary to
negotiate treaties of Commerce with
foreign nations, 152, 162; his wines,
160; in favor of loose association of
States, 196 ; and the Barbary pirates,
206; Jefferson gives estimate of, 248;
his quarrel with Jeflferson, 259-261;
reelecdon of, as Vice-President, 273;
elected President, 319; attempts rec-
onciliation with Jefferson, 321, 322,
323; inaugural address, 321, 322 ; not
a party man or party leader, 323; a
complicated and contradictory figure,
323; action in XYZ case, 323, 331,
336-338, 348, 355 ; nominated for
Presidency in 1800, 362; changes in
his Cabinet, 368; in election of 1800,
367-369; “midnight” appointments,
373. 374) refuses to welcome successor,
375 ; reconciliation with Jefferson,
318, 3x9; his study of religious con-
troversies, 322; on life, 527
Adams, John Quincy, removed from office
by Jefferson, 382, 383
Adams, Samuel, 339, 361

Addison, Judge, deposition of, by Senate
of Pennsylvania, 384
Albemarle resolutions, 45-47
Alexander I of Russia, 448
Algiers, 206

Alien Bills, 340, 342-347
Aliens, their right to hold real property
denied, 151

Allen, Ethan, declaration concerning,
drafted by Jefferson, 63
American civilization, underlying ideas of,

American imperialism, 398-400
American public education, first charter
of, 93-100

American Revolution, remonstrance in
House of Burgesses, 38; articles of
association directed against British
merchandise, 38; as to causes of, 42;
effect of passage of Boston Port Bill, in
Virginia, 43, 44; proposal to form Con-
gress, 44; declaration of mutual de-
fence, 43 ; resolutions adopted by free-
holders of Albemarle County, Va , <^3-
47; resolutions adopted by Assembly
of Fairfax County, 45-47; regulation
of American commerce, 46 ; doctrine of
expatriation, 47, 50; first Continental
Congress, 54; second Continental
Congress, 59 ; Lord North’s “Concilia-
tory Proposition” answered, 62; inde-
pendence not at first aimed at, 63-65 ;
colonies instructed to form govern-
ments, 66; Declaration of Independ-
ence, 69-71 ; treatment of prisoners in,
log-112 See also British colonies
Americanism, cardinal principles of, 32,
61; creed of, formulated by Jefferson,
62, 120; Jefferson’s conception of,
when he wrote “Notes on Virginia”,
136 ; practical idealism a tenet of, 275 ;
pure, 334, 335; definition of, 332;
Jefferson’s system of, 423, 428, 468

INDEX

536

Armstrong, Gen. John, American repre-
sentative in Paris, 462
Arnold, Benedict, 108
“Arrears of Interest, Report on”, Jeffer-
son, 146

Articles of Confederation, discussion of, in
Congress, 80; defects in, 145, 146, igSi
197

“Assumption” of the State debts, 250^255
Aurora, journal, 311, 313, 343, 354
Austin, Benjamin, 491

Bache’s Aurora, 311, 313, 343, 356
Balance of power, 476
Bank Bill, Hamilton's, 255-258
Bannister, J. B., Jr , letter to, 172
Barbaiy pirates, 205-207, 428, 443
Barb6-Marbois, secretary of French le-
gation in United States, 118, 414
Bastille, capture of, 235
Bayard, James A , nominated plenipoten-
tiary to French Republic, 373, 374
Bellini, letter to, 173
Berlin Decree, 430

Beveridge, Albert J., his “Life of Mar-
shall”, 384, 38s, 434_ _

Bill for a General Revision of the Laws,
Virginia, 90

Bill for Amending the Charter for William
and Mary, g8, gg, 105, 106
Bill for Proportioning Crimes and Punish-
ments, Virginia, 93-95
Bill for Religious Freedom, Virginia, 89,
100-103, 106, 365

Bill for the more General Diffusion of
Knowledge, Virginia, 95-99, 105, 505,
508

Bill of Rights, 198-201, 204

Bill on the Naturalization of Foreigners,

BUI to Abolish Entails, Virginia, 88, 89
Bingham, Mrs., 160

Bishop, Samuel, appointed collector of
New Haven, 381

Blennerhasset, Harman, and the Burr
conspiracy, 431, 432

Bolingbroke, Henry St. John, his influ-
ence on Jefferson, 21, 23, 26, 31
Bollman, and the Burr conspiracy, 432,

433

Bonaparte, his projected invasion of Eng-
land, 336 ; Jefferson’s opinion of, 359,

475, 476; precedent established by,
360

Boston Port BiU, 43
Brazil, 483

Breckenridge, James, on board of visitors
of University of Virginia, 509
Breckenridge, John, letters to, 370, 371,
416

British colonies, conti actual theory of
government of, 45, 46; regulation of
commerce of, 46, 47 ; rights of, 48-53.
See also American Revolution
Brunswick, Duke of, defeat, 273
Buchan, Lord, letter to, 444
Budget, presented by Jefferson, 146
Buffon, G. L. L. de, theory of, concerning
animals in America, 121, 122
Burke, “History of Virginia”, 12, 515
Burlamaqui, Jean Jacques, quotation
from, 73

Burnaby, English tourist, quoted on Vir-
ginia colonists, 42

Burr, Col. Aaron, letters to, 332, 354;
nominated for Vice-Presidency (1800),
362; in the 1800-electjon, 369-373;
Us presence in government an annoy-
ance to Jefferson, 382 ; conspiracy,
429-439; duel with Hamilton, 431
Burwell, Rebecca, and Jefferson, 16, 17

Cabanis, P. j. G., 161; letter to, 422
Cabell, Joseph C., 507 ; on board of vis-
itors of University of Virginia, 509;
letters to, 512

Cabell, Gov. William H., 451
Cabinet, the President’s, in Washington’s
time, 247; Adams’s, 322, 323, 368;
relation to President, 392
Callender, 356, 427 ; employed by Jeffer-
son, 361 ; Jefferson’s interest in, 363 ; his
pamphlet, “The Prospect Before Us”
(“History of the Administration of
John Adams ”), 382

Calonne, Charles Alexandre de, 178, 182
Calvinism, 522
Canning, George, 453
Capital, of United States, seat of, 252, 253
Capitol, at Washington, the new, question
of putting inscription on, 479
Caracas, constitution of, 498
Carleton, Guy, governor of Canada, in
Carmichael, 198, 211, 226, 263, 276, 288

INDEX

537

Carr, Dabney, death, 40, 41
Carr, Peter, 21, 175

Carrington, Edward, letters to, 196, 213,
219

Carthagenes, constitution of, 498
Cary, Col Archibald, 139
Ceres, sailing-vessel, 153, 139
Champion de Cice, Archbishop of Bor-
deaux, 235

Charlottesville, Va , war prisoners at, 109
Chase, Judge Samuel, impeachment of,
387-389

Chastellux, Chevalier de, friend of Jeffer-
son, 154

Chesapeake- Leopard, affair, 4Sr-4S3
Church, Mrs , 298, 299
Church of England, in Virginia, 90, 103
Cincinnati, Society of the, 152, 306
Clay, Rev Mr Charles, subscription for
support of, io3-:ci5

Clinton, George, Vice-President, 395,
463. 4 fl 4

Cocke, J, H , on board of visitors of Uni-
versity of Virginia, 509
Collot, Gen , 402
Colvin, J. B., letter to, 469
Comit6 du Commerce, 178, 183
Commerce, one of the great causes of war,
83 ; Treaty of, 143, 144 ; Gallo-Amer-
ican, 181-184 ; Report of Jefferson on
Privileges and Restrictions of, 302
Commercial monopolies, 151, 152
Commercial treaties, r49-r52
Committees of safety, 54
Confederation, Treaty of Commerce, 143,
144; defects m, 145, 146, 195, 197;
monetary system, 146, 147 ; new
States, 148; slavery, 148, 149; he-
reditary titles, 148, 149; commercial
treaties, 149-152. See also Articles
of Confederation ; United States
Congress, first proposal for, 44. See also
Continental Congress
Congressional election, see Election
Congressional Library, destroyed by
English, 476

Constitution of United States, 195-202
Continental Congress, First, 54, 83 ; Sec-
ond, 59; of the Confederation, 143-152
Contraband, 151, 152, 422, 423
Cooper, Thomas, Sio; letters to, 492,
S12, 521

Coray, Mr., 516
Corny, M. de, 234

Corny, Madame de, 161, 245, 246, 274,
298, 299

Correa de Serra, 484, 516
Coxe, Tench, letters to, 304, 371, 372
Crawford, Dr. John, letter to, 480
Crimes and punishments, in Virginia, 93-
95

Cuba, 470, 485
Cutting, letter to, 225

Daihvmple, Sir John, his “Essay To-
wards a General History of Feudal
Property”, 30
Dandridge, Mr., 14
Danville, Duchesse, 274
Deane, Silas, quoted on Southern dele-
gates to first Continental Congress,
42; elected commissioner to France,

Dearborn, Henry, Secretary of War in
Jefferson’s Cabinet, 374
Debts of United States, foreign, domestic,
and State, 250-255, 258
“Declaration EuropSenne des droits de
I’homme et du citoyen ”, Lafayette,
232-234

Declaration of Independence, the story
of, 69-71; origin of, 71-74, 77; as
literature, 72 ; “ the pursuit of happi-
ness” in, 75-76; highest achievement
of eighteenth-century philosophy, 76;
suggests tone of Greek tragedy, 77
Declaration of Rights of 1774, 73
Declaration on Violation of Rights,
adopted by First Continental Congress,
83

Dejean, Lieut., iii
Democrat, sailing-vessel, 294
Democratic societies, 306, 334
De Moustier, letter to, 254
Destutt de Tracy, A. L. C., meedng with
Jefferson, 161; letter to, 484; his
"Political Economy ”, 495 ; living em-
bodiment of polidcal faith of nineteenth
century, 514

Dexter, Samuel, Secretary of War in
Adams’s Cabinet, 368; Secretary of
the Treasury in Adams’s Cabinet, 374
Dickinson, John, in Continental Congress,
60; letter of, 361

INDEX

538

Dictator, proposition for appointment of,
127, 128

Douglas, Dr , clergyman, s, 20
Duane, William, flogged, 355 ; letter to,
475

Dumas, financial agent of the United
States at the Hague, 185, 187, 1Q7,
2Q9, 252, 2S3, 289

Dunbar, William, discussions with Jeffer-
son, 371

Dunglison, Dr., on visitors at Monticello,
S16; on Jefferson’s religious belief,
S2o; his account of Jefferson’s death,
S3I

Dunmore, John Murray, Earl of, governor
of Virginia, 43, 44, 54, ss> dd
Du Pont de Nemours, Pierre S., Jeffer-
son’s association with, 2r5; his “Plan
of a National Education”, 358, 506,
507, 512 ; theories and practice of, 395;
correspondence with Jefferson, 403-409,
41I, 414, 41S) 420, 4S2> 471. 478, 493i
497, 498, 5r4; and the Louisiana
problem, 407-409, 4i2-4t5; never
fuUy understood Jefferson, 496 j diaws
up plan of government for the “Equi-
noctial republics”, 498; living embodi-
ment of political faith of nineteenth
century, 513, 314

Edwabbs, Jonathan, 430
Election, of 1792, 272, 273 ; of 1796, 316-
319; of iSoo, 363-373; of 1804, 389,
395

Ellsworth, Oliver, appointed Plenipoten-
tiary to France, 355

Embargo of 1S07, 428, 456-462, 470, 471
“Encyclopedie Mfithodique ”, 160, 214
English, their monopoly of the Amer-
ican market, 326, 327
Entails, abolished in Virginia, 88, 89
Epicurism, 521

Eppes, Mrs., sister of Mrs. Jefferson, 133
Equinoctial republics, 498
Essex case, 447
Estaing, Admiral d’, 206
Euripides, 32, 24

Eustis, Dr. William, letter to, 461
Excise tax, 234, 253, 393 ; revolt against
(Whisky Insurrection), 305, 306; Jef-
ferson’s bitterness against, 306, 307
Expatriation, doctrine of, 47, 30, 89, 107

FAiRrAix resolutions, 43-48
Farmers-general, 177-181
Farming taxes, 177-181
Fauquier, Dr., of Floirac, 12
Fauquier, Gov. Francis, his intimacy with
Jefferson, 12, 13

Federal Government, prerogatives of, 83
Federalist, the, 200

Federalists, their power broken, 333, 362 ;
in election of 1800, 367-373, 389 ; in
Jefferson’s administration, 3S0, 381
Feudal system, abolishment of, in Vir-
ginia, 88, 89

Fleming, William, letters to, 78, 79 ; on
committee on religion, 89
Florida, Western and Eastern, 443, 446
Foster, Dwight, Senator, makes offer to
Jefferson, 373
Fox blockade, 430

France, educational system of, 98 ; colo-
nizing designs of, feared, 207 ; difficulties
with, 2S8, 323-323, 331-342, 440) 447-
462. See also French Revolution
Franklin, Benjamin, on committee of
Continental Congress appointed to
answer Lord North’s "Conciliatory
Proposition ”, 62 ; his part in Declara-
tion of Independence, 69, 70; on com-
mittee to suggest United States seal,
86; elected commissioner to France,
87; Jefferson’s view of, 122 ; appointed
Minister Plenipotentiary to negotiate
treaties of commerce, rs2, 162; inter-
view with Jefferson, 247
Franklin, William Temple, papers en-
trusted to, by Benjamin Franklin, 247
Free ports, 182
Freedom of speech, 427
Freedom of the press, importance of,
203, 427

Freedom of thought, Jefferson’s under-
standing of, 103
Freeholders, rights of, 32
French constitution, 143
French debt, of United States, 176, 177,
i8t, 182, 184-193

French Revolution, Declaration of Jme
* 3 ) 1793) 76; Declaration of May 29,
1793, 82; Assembly of the Notables,
219-222, 223; convocation of States-
General, 227, 229; National As-
sembly, 231, 232 ; capture of the

INDEX S39

Bastille, 235 ; defeat of Duke of Bruns-
wick, 273; becomes international issue,
279; flight of king, 282; execution of
king, 287

Freneau, Philip, his paper, the National
Gazette, 261-263, 269
Fry, Joshua, professor in William and
Mary College, $

Gali-atin, Albert, in Whiskey Rebellion,
303; speech of, 31 1 ; letter to, 480
Gates, Horatio, letters to, 416, 44s
Gazette of the United States, attacks Jeffer-
son, 268, 269

Geismer, Baron de, no, 163
Generations of men, rights of, 234
Gen6t, Citizen Edmond C., the case of,
288-297

Gerry, Elbridge, letters to, 325, 351-353;
appointed envoy extraordinary to
France, 333
Ghent, Treaty of, 485
Giles, William B., and Jefferson, 311;

letters to, 307, 309, 436
Gilmer, Francis Walker, and Jefferson,
253 ; sent to England to recruit faculty
for University of Virginia, 511
“Government by the people”, 237
Granger, Gideon, letter to, 363
Great Britain, United States debt to, 186-
193 ; her hatred of United States, 208,
209; and France, war between, 288,
440, 447-462; her navy, policies of,
in regard to contraband and impress-
ment, 422, 423

Greene, William, letter to, 356

Hamilton, Alexander, quarrel with Jeff-
erson, 127, 255-258, 263, 265, 266, 268-
271; Secretary of the Treasury, 247;
Jefferson gives estimate of, 248; Re-
ports of, 249 ; his Bank Bill, 255-257 ;
his actions supported by Washington,
271; attitude toward England, 290;
and Whisky Insurrection, 306; would
encourage American manufactures, 327,
443 ; his plans of administrative re-
organization, 349, 350 ; in election cam-
paign of 1800, 367, 368; duel with
Burr, 431

Hamilton, Gov., of Kaskakias, in
Hammond, George, British minister to
United States, 291, 292

Hardy, Samuel, delegate to Congress from
Virginia, 140

Harrison, Gov., letters to, 145, 415
Hawkesbury, Lord, 402, 404
Hawkins, Col. Benjamin, discussions with
Jefferson, 358 ; letter to, 364
Hay, George, 436
HelvStius, Madame, 161, 215
Henry, Patrick, and Jefferson, 14, 15, 26,
27, 37, 63; his study of the law, 28;
after passage of Boston Port Bill, 43 ;
and Jefferson’s “ Summary View ”,
47 ; speech at second Virginia Conven-
tion, 54; opposes Bill to Abolish En-
tails, 89 ; seconds motion for appoint-
ment of dictator, 127 ; appointed Pleni-
potentiary to France, 355
Hereditary titles, in the Confederation,
148, 149

Hervey, John, guardian of Jefferson, 8
Hobbes, Thomas, 82

Holland, United States debt to, 187-193
Hopkinson, Francis, 200
Hopkinson, Mis., 153
Houdetot, Madame d 161, 274
Howe, Lord, negotiations of Franklin
with, 247

Howick, Lord, 450

Humboldt, Baton Alexander von, letter
to, 481

Humphreys, Col. David, secretary of
legation in Paris, 153, 159, 223, 228

Immigration, Jefferson’s views of, 123-
125

Impeachment, the Repubiican under-
standing of, 383, 387
“Implied powers ”, doctrine of, 256
Impressment, of British sailors on neutral
vessels, 423; an issue of the War of
1812, 478
Income tax, 494

Indians, 7; study of customs and lan-
guages of, 99 ; atrocities of, in Ameri-
can Revolution, in; eloquence of,
121 ; affairs of, treated in Jefferson’s
second inaugural, 425-427
Industrialism, dangers of, 492
Isham, Mary, 3

Jackson, Andrew, 431
Jacobins, see Repubheans

540

INDEX

Jay, John, letters to, 223, 224, 231, 234)
236, 239. See also Jay treaty.

Jay, Gov. John, letter to, 491
Jay treaty, 305, 307, 30S, 316, 324
Jefferson, Lucy Elizabeth, daughter of
Thomas Jefierson, 139 ; death, 163
Jefferson, Martha, daughter of Thomas
Jefferson, her account of Mrs. Jeffer-
son’s death, 138; date of birth, 139;
accompanies father to Europe, 153,
139; marriage, 246; at Monticello,
300, Jefieraon’s farewell message to,
532

Jefierson, Mary, daughter of Thomas
Jefferson, 139, i6r ; joins father in
Paris, 163

Jefferson, Peter, father of Thomas Jeffer-
son, 4, 3

Jefferson, Mrs. Peter, see Randolph, Jane
Jefferson, Thomas, birth, 3 ; ancestry
and parentage, 3-3 ; “Autobiography ”,
jee below; schooling, 3-7 ; early reading,
6 ; life at Shad well, 6-8 ; at ’William and
Maty College, 8-17 ; oratorical ambi-
tions, 14; influence of Patrick Henry
upon, 14, 15, 26, 27, 37 ; love episode
with Rebecca Burwell, 16-18; com-
monplace books, 19, see also below;
change in religious belief, 19-24; dis-
trust of women, 22 ; his system of
morality, 24-26, see also Morality;
influence of Greek Stoics upon, 26;
studies law, 27-31 ; his revindication
of the Saxon liberties, 31, 32; his ac-
quaintance with languages and books,
33 ; practices law, 34, 36 ; life as farmer
at Shadwell, 34, 33; his “Garden
Books ”, 35, 39 ; his scorn of rhetoric,
36, 37 ; character of his mind, 37 ; in
House of Burgesses, 38 ; his library, 39 ;
marriage, 39, 40; life at Monticello,
41 ; after passing of Boston Port Bill,
43, 44; his declaration of mutual de-
fence, 43; writes Albemarle resolu-
tions, 43-47; his doctrine of expatria-
tion, 47, 30, 8 q, 107 ; drafts instructions
to 'Virginia delegates to first Conti-
nental Congress, 47, 33 ; his "A Sum-
mary View of the Rights of British
America”, 4S-53 ; his discussion of land
tenures, 49; speaks as pioneer, 32, 53;
in second Virginia Convention, 34 ; dele-

gate to second Continental Congress,
54 ) 55 ) 64; his part of “ Declaration of
the Cause of Taking Up Arms ”, 39-62 ;
his answer to Lord North’s “ Concili-
atory Proposition”, 62; influence of
Greek and Latin orators on his style, 63 ;
his view of independence, 63-65 ; his
absence from Congress during prelim-
inary steps to Declaration of Independ-
ence, 66; appointed Lieutenant and
Commander in chiaf of the Militia of
the County of Albemarle, 66; drafts
constitution for Virginia, 66-69; und
the Declaration of Independence, 69-
78; resigns from Congress and enters
Virginia Legislature, 78, 79 ; his view
of the social compact and liberty, 80-
82, 83, 204, 365, 498 ; his philosophy of
natural and civil rights, 80-83, 1°^) 204,
346, 363 ; his conception of state sover-
eignty, 82, 83 ; his views on property,
84, 85 ; his suggestion for United Slates
seal, 86; the source of his political
philosophy, 87 ; refuses post of commis-
sioner to France, 87, 88; birth of son,
88 ; his part in revision of laws of Vir-
ginia, 88-103; starts subscription for
Rev. Charles Clay, 103-103; his doc-
trine of government, 105-107 ; as Gov-
ernor of Virginia, 107-114; his attitude
toward British prisoners, 109-112; a
stem, but little observed, trait in his
character, 111-113; nearly taken by
the British, 113; charges against his
conduct as governor, 114, 113; impa-
tient at public criticism, 115; refuses
new appointment to European post,
IIS, iid; his determination to return
to private life, 116-118, 153; his de-
scription of natural scenery, 120, 121;
his studies in natural history, 1 21, 122;
his answer to Abb6 Raynal, 122, 123 ;
his views on immigration, 123-123;
his combination of faith and pessimism
in reference to government, 123, 126;
his view of the best government, 126,
127; his opposition to dictator, 127,
128 ; his belief in efiicacy of universal
suffrage, 129, 130; his pessimism as
regards human nature and human
society, 130; hia views of slavery and
the Negro, 131, see also Slavery; his

INDEX

view of American civilization as agricul-
tural, 132 ; advises peace and prepar-
edness, 133, 134; Ms ideal picture of
America, 135, 136; death of Ms wife,
i37( 138; appointed Plempotentiary
to Europe, but appointment canceled,
139, 140; delegate to Congress (June,
X782 to July s, 17S4), 140, 143-152;
founds American monetary system,
147; appointed Minister Plenipotenti-
ary to negotiate treaties of commerce
with foreign nations, 152; his quali-
fications for European task, 153-155;
Ms quarters in Paris, 159 , his views of
Paris, 160; his friends and acquaint-
ances at Paris, 161, 162; rooms in
Carthusian Monastery, 163 ; his travels
in Europe, 164-171; advises against
sending youth to Europe, 172 ; com-
pares Europe with America, 173-175;
Ms duties at Paris, 176; and foreign
debts, 176, 177, 181-193; ^■nd the
tobacco trade, 177-181; his efforts to
promote Gallo-American commerce,
181-184 ; puls all questions on a prac-
tical basis, 194; his views on the
American Constitution, 195-202; Ms
political philosophy, 203-205 ; Ms
management of the problem of the
Barbary pirates, 205-207 ; Ms fear of
French, English, and SpaMsh designs
in New World, 207-211; his belief in
poliq' of isolation for United States,
211, 212; originates policy of watchful
waiting, 214; his attitude toward
French Revolution, 215-237 ; draws up
“Charter of Rights for the King and
Nation”, 230; his emendations and
corrections to Lafayette’s “Declaration
Europ6enne des droits de I’homme et
du citoyen ”, 232-234 ; his house made
the scene of French committee meetmg,
235-237 ; how far he believed in “gov-
ernment by the people ”, 237, 238 ; on
the French people, 238-240; asserts
one standard of morality for nations
and individuals, 240, 241 ; accepts post
of Secretary of State, 245, 246; pays
respects to Franklin, 247 ; the “Anas ”,
248, 251, 29s, S15; his attitude toward
United States debts, 250-255 ; quarrel
with Hamilton, 255-258, 263, 265, 266,

541

268-271; his opposition to Bank Bill,
255-258; his theory of State rights,
257, 365 ; his quarrel with Adams, 258-
261 ; leaches an impasse, 264 ; Ms pro-
posed changes in Virginia Constitution,
264, 265 ; Ms indictment of Hamilton’s
system, 265-267 ; urges Washington to
run a second time for Presidency, 267 ;
attacked by Candle of the United States,
268, 269 ; becomes leader of new party,
269; his fears of a monarchy, 271,
272, 344; letters to French fiiends,
274; his practical idealism, 275, 381,
382; efforts to obtain New Orleans,
276-278; becomes sympathetic with
republican government in France, 278-
280, 282, 285-287 ; his efforts to obtain
commercial privileges with West Indies,
280-282 ; cautious in action, 283 ; Ms
principles as to recognition of foreign
governments, 284, 286 ; and the war
between England and Fiance, and
Citizen Genfit, 287-297 ; resigns Secre-
taryship, 297; in retirement at Monti-
cello, 298-320; his admiration for
Madame de Corny, 298, 299; avoids
politics, 299-303; his Report on the
Privileges and Restrictions of the Com-
merce of the United States, 302 ; hopes
for avoidance of war with Great Britain,
303-305 ; views on current political
events, 308-313; writes indiscreet
letter to Mazzei, 312, 333; pen-por-
trait of, 314, 315 ; chosen Vice-Presi-
dent, 320; attempted reconciliation
with Adams, 321, 322, 325; desires
peace with Europe, 324, 326, 337, 339,
343; his “Parliamentary Manual”,
325; his view of manufactures, 327,
329; forms certain political conclu-
sions, 334, 335 ; Ms self-mastery,

340; opposed to break in the UMon,
340, 341 ; newspaper war against, 341,
343 ; his share in Kentucky and
Virgima nullification resolutions, 345 ;
luminous exposition of his doctrine
(program of the Democratic party) ,351,
352; as political leader, 352-362;
nominated for Presidency (1800), 362;
in the campaign, 363-368 ; in the elec-
tion, 368-373; inauguration, 375; in-
augural address, 379 ; his removals from

S42

INDEX

Jefferson, Thomas, — Conlinved

office, 380, 381 , his attack on the ju-
diciary, 383-390, 436 ; reelected (1804),
389, 39S ; convinced of the evil of the
intrusion of churches into politics, 390 ;
hostility to, 390, 391 , his relation to
Cabinet members, 392; liis reform in
financial system of United States, 393 ;
his attitude toward agriculture and
manufactures, 394, 393 ; his imperial-
ist views, 398-400, 449 ; and Louisiana
Purchase, 405-421 ; sends Lewis on
Western exploring expedition, 421, 422 ;
his policy in war between England and
France, 424, 440, 441, 444, 447-462;
his second inaugural address, 425-428,
442; the ordeal of his second term,
428, 429 ; inconsistency of his conduct
in Burr case, 437-439; tries to obtain
the Floridas, 445, 446; offers alliance
with England, 446 , writes to Alexander
of Russia concerning rights of neutrals,
448 , imperialistic pioposition of, 449 ;
his letters, 468, 514, 516; his views of
Executive and Congress, 468-470;
opposed to English mercantilism, 471 ;
his detestation of English poheies and
rulers, 470-473 , his ideas on War of
1812, 473-478 ; offers hbrary to Con-
gress, 477 ; his feeling for England as
distinguished from English government,
479 ; opinions on affairs of Europe and
South America, 479-486; and the
Monroe Doctrine, 483, 486-488; form-
ulates the gospel of American democ-
racy, 489 ; economic and banking
theories of, 490-496 ; his view of best
government for France, 496, 497 ; his
theory of the function of tie people in
a democracy, 499-502 ; sees germs of
national weakness in United States
government, 502-505, his services to
education (University of Virginia),
505-512; his inteiests, 514-516; his
conclusion, on the future of democracy,
517; reconciliation with Adams, 518,
5 19 ; his later religious views, 5 19-528 ;
his faith in ultimate recognition of
ideals, 528, 529; his last years and
death, 529-532

"Autobiography”, references to, 4,
S3, So, 88, 91, 93, los, 108, 148, 236;

quoted on proposal for Congress, 44;
on expatriation, 47; on Jefferson’s
retirement from Congress, 79; on
simplification of statutes, 92 ; on self-
government of the people, 106; on
method of composition used in “Notes
on Virginia”, 119; on attendance at
Congress, 143 ; on Committee of
Congress, 145; on Jefferson’s duties
in Paris, 176; picture of events pre-
ceding French Revolution in, 224; on
refusal of invitation to attend meeting
of French committee, 235 ; the writing
of, SIS

“Commonplace Book”, 19, 39; law
matters in, 28-30; provincialism in,
32 ; Kames quoted in, 45, 84 ; on rights
of Dominion of Virginia, 46; passages
from James Wilson in, 73; Montes-
quieu and Beccaria copied in, 94;
extracts on history of Common Law in,
lor ; on death, 530, 531 ; other refer-
ences to, 47, 49

“Literary Bible”, 19, 21, 22, 25, 26,
41; provincialism in, 32; Milton in, 40

“Notes on Virginia”, references to,
69, 98, 100, loi, 103, 153, i 64) 169, 171,
215,425, 508; publication of, 118-120;
contents of, 120-136; memorandum
on new constitution for Virginia in, 141 ;
on value of education, 505
Jones, Prof. Hugh, his description of
Williamsburg, 8
Jones, Paul, 207
Jones, Dr Walter, letter to, 499
Journal de Paris, imprisonment of chief
editor of, 217

Judiciary, assault on, under Jefferson,
383-390. 436

Judiciary Act of 1801, repeal of, 384

Kadis (Kames), Henry Home, Lord, his
“Historical Law Tracts”, 29, 30; on
mutual defence, 45 ; his distinction of
“property” and “possession”, 84, 85;
referred to, 304

Kant, Immanuel, criterium of, 525
Keith, Mary, wife of Thomas Marshall, 4
Kentucky nullification resolutions, 345-
347

Kercheval, Samuel, letter to, 234, 504
King, Rufus, 402-405, 408

INDEX

Knox, Gen. Henry, Secretary of War
under Washington, 247
Kosciusko, 516

Latayette, Maequis de, his plan for a
“ declaration of the rights of man and
the citizen”, 76 ; sent to arrest Arnold,
108; friend of Jefferson, 154; his fam-
ily and friends, 161 ; and the tobacco
monopoly, 177-179; efforts of, in
commercial transactions, i8r, 182 ; and
the Barbary pirates, 206; advice of
Jefferson to, 220; Jefferson sends
“Charter of Eights for the King and
Nation” to, 230; letters of, 232; his
“Declaration Europdeime des droits de
I’homme et du citoyen”, 232-234;
brings about committee meeting in
Jefferson’s house, 236 ; letters to, 274,
283; living embodiment of political
faith of nineteenth century, 514; his
final leave-taking of Jefferson, 531
Lambert, British traveler, 460
Lamothe, Lieut., in
Land Office, ordinance concerning estab-
lishment of, 149
Land tenures, origin of, 49
“La Pey rouse’s voyage to the South
Seas”, 207

La Rochefoucauld-Liancourt, visits
Monticello, 313-313, 327
Latude, Jean Henri de, 219
Law, Thomas, letters to, 478, 324
Law, and free institutions, in Saxon
society, 31, 32
“Law of nature ”, 23
League of Nations, 330
Lee, Arthur, delegate to Congress from
Virginia, 140

Lee, C., appointed judge by Adams,
374

Lee, F. L., of Virginia Assembly, 43
Lee, Richard H., of Virginia Assembly,
43 ; on committee of continental Con-
gress appointed to answer Lord North’s
“Conciliatoty Proposition ”, 62 ; assists
in framing resolution instructing col-
onies to form governments, 66 ; men-
tioned, 79

Lee, Thomas LudweU, appointed reviser
of laws of Virginia, 90-92
Leib, Dr., 311, 343 ; letter to, 458

543

Lewis (Merriwether) and Clark (William)
Expedition, 421, 422
Liberty, Jefferson’s definition of, 82
Lincoln, Abraham, Gettysburg address, 77
Little Sarah, British prize, 294
Livingston, Edward, member of Congiess
from New York, 368
Livingston, Robeit R , on committee to
prepare Declaration of Independence,
69; letters to, 362, 368, 419; United
States Minister to France, 374; and
Louisiana, 402-416
Lobbying, 502

Locke, John, his “ Treatise on Civil Gov-
ernment”, 30; and the Declaration of
Independence, 71, 72; his hypothesis
of society, 82, 84, 204
Logan, Dr., idealistic pacifist, 341
Logan Law, 350

Louis XVI, Jefferson’s pen-portrait of,
222, 229 ; flight of, 282 ; execution of,
287

Louisiana Purchase, 393, 400-421
“Louisianais ”, acceptance of, to citizen-
ship, 423

McGregory, letter to, 363
McHenry, James, Secretary of War in
Cabinets of Washington and Adams,
323, 336 ; dismissed by Adams, 368
Madison, Bishop, discusses religion with
Jefferson, 358

Madison, James, disapproves of Jeffer-
son’s determination to withdraw from
public life, 117; delegate to Congress,
140; Jefferson’s correspondence with,
198, 222, 231, 234, 239, 240, 291, 302,
303> 3°6, 307. 33s, 337. 338, 347. 3Si,
355, 462, 468, 476 ; urges Jefferson to
accept post of Secretary of State, 246,
Jefferson’s unofficial representative in
Congress, 250, 251 ; Bank Bill opposed
by, 255; speeches, 257; his copy of
“The Rights of Man”, 258; accom-
panies Jefferson on trip, 259 ; objections
to, as Minister to France, 321, 322;
envoy to France, 324; silent on French
dispute, 339 ; recommends Virginia
nullification resolutions, 345 ; letter of,
411; election of, to Presidency, 464;
on board of visitors to University of
Virginia, 509

544

INDEX

Madrid, Treaty of, 403
Mann, Thomas, letter to, 308
Manufactures, Hamilton’s Report on,
249, 266; Hamilton’s view of, 327;
Jefferson’s view of, 327-329 ; change in
Jefferson’s view of, 491, 492
“Marbury versus Madison”, 384, 383
Marshall, John, ancestry, 3 ; appointed
envoy extraordinary to France, 333;
returns from France, 341 ; Secretary of
State in Adams’s Cabinet, 368; ad-
ministers oath to Jefferson, 375 ; head
of Federalists, 381 ; his decision in
“Marbury versus Madison ”, 384, 385;
asserts power of Supreme Court to de-
clare law unconstitutional, 385, 386;
findings of, in Burr conspiracy case,
433, 434, 436, 437; Ws "History of
Washington”, 515
Marshall, Thomas, family of, 4
Martin, Luther, in Chase impeachment
case, 389

Mason, George, resolutions written by,
4S. 46, 48; “Virginia Bill of Rights”
written by, 73; appointed reviser of
laws of Virginia, 90-93; mentioned,

251

Mason, John, letter to, 435
Mason, Stephens Thompson, letter to, 344
Mason, Thomas, 307
Mathews, Col. George, 112
Maury, James, letters to, 454, 473. 47®
Maury, Rev. Dr., schoolmaster, 6, 20, 63
Maazei, Philip, neighbor and friend of
Jefferson, 35; letters to, 321, 333, 394
Mellishj John, traveler, 460
Mercer, John F., delegate to Congress
from Virginia, r4o, 273
Mexico, 481

Middlemen, in tobacco trade, 177-181
“Midnight judges”, 373, 374, 385
Milton, John, Ids accusations against
female usurpations, 22; quotation
from, 40

Mint, Hamilton’s Report on Establish-
ment of, 249

Mississippi, navigation of, 276
Missouri question, 302, 303
Mitchell, Dr., unpublished letter to, 390
Monocrats, 273, 306, 316
Monroe, James, disapproves of Jeffer-
son’s determination to withdraw from

public life, 117; delegate to Congress
from Virginia, 140; Jefferson’s corre-
spondence with, 217, 231, 260, 290, 301-
303. 316. 317, 3S4. 357. 363. 373. 399,
463, 48s, 486; on Washington’s proc-
lamation of neutrality, 293; sent as
special envoy to France to negotiate for
Louisiana, 411, 413, 41S1 4rd; his fear
of alliance of Great Britain and France
against United States, 423 ; negotiates,
with Pinirney, treaty with England,
448-450 ; considered for Presidency in
1808, 463, 464; on board of visitors to
University of Virginia, 309
Monroe Doctrine, 483, 486— 48S
Montaigne, M. E. de, 130
Montesquieu, Baron de, 233
Monticello, the building of, 34, 39 ; life
at, 41 ; Jefferson in retirement at, 298-
320; a self-supporting economic unit,
327,467; visitors to, SIS
Montmorency, 234

Montmorin, Minister, 220, 237, 274, 278
Morality, and religion, 24, 25, 523-525;

test of, 525; code of, 526
Morellet, Abb6, translator of “Notes on
’Virginia”, 118; meets Jefferson, 161,
215

Morocco, Emperor, treaty with, 312
Morris, Gouverneur,his accusation against
Jefferson, 224; letters to, 254, 263, 286,
293, 2p4, 295; Minister to France,
283; letters from, 284; conduct as
Minister to France, 323; offers to use
political influence for Jefferson, 372
Morris, Robert, Financier of U. S., 146,
179

Mutual defence, 43, 84

National Gazelle, foundation of, 261-263
Natural Bridge, description of, 120, 17s
Necker, Jacques, 229, 231
Negro, Jefferson’s view of status of, 13 1
Nelson, Gen., elected governor of Vir-
ginia, 113

Nelson, Thomas, Jr., letter to, 66
Neutrality, Washington’s proclamation
of, 289, 293 ; Jefferson’s policy of, 424
New Granada, constitution of, 498
New London Bee, 368
New Orleans, Jefferson’s efforts to obtain,
276-278

INDEX

545

Nicholas, George, his charges against
Jefferson, 114, 115, 127; proposes dic-
tator, 127 ; his share in Kentucky and
Virginia nullification resolutions, 345
Nicholas, Robert C,, 28
Nicholas, Wilson C., his share in Ken-
tucky and Virginia nullification resolu-
tions, 34s; refutes Federalists, 357
Nicholson, Joseph N., member of Con-
gress, 372

Nock, A. J., historian of Jefferson, 457,
458

Non-Intercourse Act, 461
North, Lord, his “Conciliatory Proposi-
tion”, 54; Jefferson’s answer to his
“Conciliatory Proposition”, 62
Nullification resoiutions, 345-347

Ogden, John, arrest of, 354
Ogilvie, James, 502
Oratory, American school of, 388, 389
Orders in Council (Nov. ii, 1807), 453,
4S7

Otis, H. G., nominated District Attorney
by Adams, 374

Page, John, Jefferson’s correspondence
with, 15, 16, 19, 20, 38, 78, 166; on
committee on religion, 89
Paine, Thomas, document in the hand
of, 80; letter to, 227, 228; his
“ The Rights of Man ”, 2s8-26t ;
Jefferson’s regard for, resented, 390,

391

Paradise, Comtesse Barziza, Lucy, 162
Parsons, Theophilus, nominated At-
torney-General, 373
“Parson's Case ”, 15
Patowmac River, 120
Pendleton, Edmund, letters to, 78, 87, 88 ;
opposes Bill to Abolish Entails, 89;
appointed reviser of laws of Virginia,
90; appeal of Jefferson to, 353; con-
gratulates Jefferson, 362
Physiocrats, 14a, 233, 328, 395, 471.
493-49S> 498

Pichon, French charge at The Hague, 354 ;

Minister in Washington, 419
Pickering, Judge, impeachment of, 384
Pickering, Timothy, in Cabinets of Wash-
ington and Adams, 323, 336 ; dismissed
by Adams, 368

Picket, F. J , of Geneva, 507
Pinckney, Charles, Minister to Spain,
402; letter to, 458
Pinckney, Charles Cotesworlli, his treat-
ment by the French Directory, 324,
32S1 33t ; appointed envoy extraordi-
nary to Fiance, 333; nominated for
Vice-Presidency (1800), 362 ; candidate
for President (1808), 464
Pinckney, Thomas, Minister to Great
Britain, 290; letter to, 331
Pinkney, William, and Monroe, negotiate
treaty with England, 448-450
Politics, foreign and domestic, 248
Presidential election, see Election
Priestley, Joseph, letters to, 358, 420, 517 ;
befriended by Jefferson, 366; his
“Hints Concerning Public Education ”,
506; Iris treatise, “Of Socrates and
Jesus compared ", 526
Privateering, 151, 152
Privateers, outfitted and commissioned
by Genfit, 291, 292

“Proclamation announcing ratification of
definitive treaties. Draft for ”, 144
Property, tbe right to, 83-85, 233 ; and
possession, distinction between, 85
Prospect, 361
Protestants, edict on, 224
Public opinion, 203, 204, 301, 429
“Pursuit of happiness ”, as a right, 75, 76

Raleigh Tavern, Williamsburg, Va., 9,
17, 23, 44

Randolph, Edmund, letters to, 115, 117,
2S4, 300; Attorney-General under
Washington, 247, 255, 256, 292; opin-
ion of, attackeci by Jefferson, 309
Randolph, Jane, mother of Thomas Jef-
ferson, 3, 4; death, 65, 78
Randolph, John, 28; removes to England,
63. b4, 107

Randolph, John, of Roanoke, refutes
Federalists, 356; in Chase impeach-
ment case, 389; “Resolution” of, on
judiciary, 390 ; leader of discontented
Republicans, 428; his “Remonstrance
of the people of Louisiana”, 429; his
attacks on Madison, 439
Randolph, Peyton, 28, 47, 63 ; president
of first Continental Congress, 54; re-
called from Congress, 54

INDEX

546

Randolph, Mrs. Sarah, her "Domestic
Life of Thomas Jefferson ”, 529
Randolph, Thomas Mann, Jr , marries
Martha Jefferson, 246 ; letters to, 251,
262, 263, 293 ; at Monticello, 301
Randolph, William, 3
Raynal, Abbfi, his application of theory of
Buffon to American settlers, 122; an-
swer of Jefferson to, 122, 123
Religion, and morality, 24, 25, 523, 527
Religious freedom, in Virginia, 89, 90,
100-103

Republicans, in election of 1792, 273
Richmond, Va, establishment of Free
Public Library at, 99
Riedesel, Maj.-Gen. Baron de, no
Rights, natural and civil, 80-85, 2 o 4 i 233,
346

Rochefoucauld, Comtesse de la, 162
Rochefoucauld, Due de La, 274
Rodney, Caesar A., letter to, 469
Rotation in office, ^02
Rousseau, Jean Jacques, his hypothesis of
society, 82, 84; on morality, 525
Rush, Benjamin, 458; deplores estrange-
ment of Jefferson and Adams, 518;
Jefferson writes “Syllabus of an Esti-
mate of the Merit of the Doctrines of
Jesus, compared with those of others ”
for, 526, 527

Rush, Richard, letter to, 489
Rutledge, letters to, 225, 309, 317, 330,
334, 33S

Saint EIiienne, Rabaud de, Jefferson
sends "Charter of Rights for the King
and Nation” to, 230
San Ildefonso, Treaty of, 402
Santo Domingo, and Government of the
United States, 283, 285
Sedgwick, Theodore, speaker of the
House, 373

Sedition Law, 342-347, 383
Seward, W. W., letter to, 212
Shadwell, Jefferson estate, 3, 7, 8, 28, 32,
34, 3 S: bunting of, 38, 39
Shaw, Samuel, consul at Canton, 289
Sherman, Roger, on committee to prepare
Declaration of Independence, fig
“Shirt-sleeve” diplomacy, 17S
Short, William, private secretary of
Jefferson, 153, 1595 studies French,

161; correspondence with Jefferson,
275-277, 280, 282, 28s, 288, 398, 462,
517, 521; transferred to the Hague,
283 ; rebuked by Jefferson, 286
Skelton, Bathurst, 39
Skelton, Martha, married to Jefferson,
39, 40; death, 137, 138; grave and
inscription, 138

Slavery, Jefferson’s attitude toward, iig,
131, 142, 148, 152, 492, 503; in the
Confederation, 148, 149
Small, Dr. William, professor in William
and Mary College, Ills intimacy with
Jefferson, n-13, 63

Smith, Rev. Cotton Mather, his accusa-
tion against Jefferson, 363
Smith, James, letter to, 520
Smith, Robert, Attorney-General, 437
Smith, Samuel IL, letters to, 343, 477
Smith, Col. W. S., 2S7, 28S
Social compact, Jefferson’s view of, 45,
46, 80-82, 85, 204, 365, 498
Society, man and, conflict between, 107 ;
contractual and physiocratic doctrines
of, 141, 142

South America, see Spanish colonies
Spanish colonies in America, 209-211;
revolt of, 481-485

Sprigg resolution, against war with
France, 337, 338

Staei, Madame de, Jefferson’s correspond-
ence with, 476

State rights, Jefferson’s theory of, 257, 365
State sovereignty, Jefferson’s conception
of, 82, 83

State universities, 512
States, provision for new, 148, 149
Stewart, Dugald, 5, ii
Stoddart, Benjamin, Secretary of the
Navy in Adams's Cabinet, 374
Stuart, Archibald, 264
Suffrage, universal, 129, 130; limitation
of, 499

Sullivan, Francis Stoughton, his "An His-
torical Treatise of the Feudal Laws and
the Constitution of the Laws of Eng-
land ”, 30

Supreme Court, Jefferson’s attitude
toward, 346 ; Marshall’s doctrine of the
powers of, 385, 386

Swartwout, and the Burr conspiracy,
43 a, 433

INDEX

547

TARtFr, and tlie French debt, i8i ; belief
and practice in, aia, 213 ; advocated by
Jefferson’s party, 394
Tarleton, Col. Sir Bannastre, attempts to
capture Legislature and Governor of
Virginia, ri3

Taxation, forms of, 493, 494
Tayloi, John, letter to, 347; efforts to
Secure appointment of dictator, 356
Taylor, Keith, appointed judge by
Adams, 374

Tazewell, H,, letter to, 308
Ternant, French Minister to United
States, 287, 290, 2gi

Tess6, Madame de, 161, 170, 221; cor-
respondence with, 314
Thomson, Charles, letter to, 530
Ticknor, George, 510
Tobacco monopoly, 177-181
Tott, Madame do, rfia
“Transfers problem of, iSr
Treaties, see Commercial treaties
Treaty of Affiance with France (1778),
2II, 212

Treaty of Commerce, with Great Britain,

143. 144

Trial by jury, 237
Tripoli, war with, 443
Trist, Mrs., 163, 216, 330

Ungee,, Louis de, German officer, no
Unitarianism, 520

United States, suggestions for seal of, 86;
proclaimed as one nation, 144, 150;
establishment of monetary system of,
146, 147; provision for new States,
148 ; foreign debts, 176, 177, t8i, 182,
184-193; western lands, sale of, 188;
Constitution, 195-202; desire of iso-
lation, 211; often accused of hypoc-
risy in foreign dealings, 213; has
tried to combine political aloofness and
industrial and commercial develop-
ment, 330; relation to foreign nations,
396 ; neutrality of, in war between Eng-
land and France, 424, 440; imports and
exports of, at beginning of nineteenth
century, 440; population of, at begin-
ning of nineleenft century, 441, See
also American Revolution ; Articles of
Confederation; Declaration of Inde-
pendence ; Louisiana Purchase

University of Geneva, 505
University of Virginia, 509-512

Vans Murray, American Minister at The
Hague, 349, 354

Vans Murray-Pichon papers, 354, 355
Venable, 356

Vergennes, Charles G., Count de, 178,
185, 206

Virginia, family life in, before the Revolu-
tion, 4; books in, 5; religion in, 6;
plantation life in, 35, 41; House of
Burgesses, 38, 54; temper of colonists
of, 42; Constitution (1776), drafted
by Jefferson, 67-69, revision of laws
of, 88-107; ideas on new constitution
for, 140-143; Jefferson pioposes
changes in constitution, 264. See also
American Revolution ; Shad well ; Wil-
liamsburg

Virginia Bill of Rights, 73, 74, 76, 83, 100
Virginia Convention, first, 47, 53 ; second,
_S 4 _

Virginia nullification resolutions, 345-347
Virginia Company of Comedians, 34
Volney, Constantin F, C. B., Count de,
319. 339 . 340, 366, 400, 401

Walker, Col., guardian of Jefferson, 10,

War of 1812, 473-478
Washington, D, C., in 1800, 362
Washington, George, presides over
Assembly of Fairfax County, 45 ; and
Jefferson, differ as regards treatment
of British prisoners, 112; Jefferson’s
view of, 122, 139; his wines, 160; his
Cabinet, 245-247; urged by Jefferson
to run a second time for Presidency,
267; distressed at dissensions in Cab-
inet, 269 ; supports Hamilton’s actions,
271; reelection of, 272; letter to, 304;
harsh words of Jefferson against, 311
Watchful waiting, policy of, advocated
by Jefferson, 214, 423, 452
Watson, David, on board of visitors
University of Virginia, 509
Wayles, John, father-in-law of Jefferson,
39

West Indies, commerce with, 151, 280-
282, 29s, 329; Jefferson opposed to
change of ownership of, 303

INDEX

548

Western lands, sale of, 254,

Whisky Insurrection, 305, 306
White House, burned by English, 476
Wilkinson, James, and the Burr conspir-
acy, 429-433, 438

WUliam and Mary College, 8-11; reor-
ganization of, 98, 99, transformation

of, 358

Williamsburg, Va , society in, S, 9, 34
Williamson, Hugh, discussions with Jef-
ferson, 371

Wilson, James, and tlie Declaration of
Independence, 73, 76
Wilson, Woodrow, political aloofness and
industrial development conspicuous in
his position, 330; his phrase, “too

proud to fight”, 39S; neutrality of,
424, his hope of preserving peace, 444 ,
his situation in 1914-1917 compared to
that of Jefferson in 1808, 435, 436
Wistar, Caspai, discussions with Jeffer-
son, 371

Wolcott, Oliver, Secretary of tlie Treasury
under Washington and Adams, 323, 336
Woodward, Augustus S , letter to, 321
Wythe, George, professor in William and
Mary College, and Jefferson, 12, 13, 27,
28, 34, 63, appointed reviser of laws
of Virginia, 90-93 ; congratulates
Jefferson, 362 , mentioned, 310, 323

XYZ Case, 337. See also France

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Texts

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

Full text of "Thomas Jefferson The Apostle Of Americanism"

See other formats